Content uploaded by Naseem Ahmadpour
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Naseem Ahmadpour on Mar 18, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
Ethics Reflexivity Canvas: Resourcing Ethical Sensitivity for HCI
Educators
Naseem Ahmadpour
Aective Interactions lab, School of
Architecture, Design and Planning
The University of Sydney
Sydney, NSW, Australia
naseem.ahmadpour@sydney.edu.au
Ajit G. Pillai
Aective Interactions Lab
The university of Sydney
Sydney, NSW, Australia
ajit.pillai@sydney.edu.au
Wendy Qi Zhang
Aective Interactions Lab
Sydney School of Architecture,
Design and Planning, The University
of Sydney
Sydney, NSW, Australia
wendyqzhang@gmail.com
Lian Loke
Sydney School of Architecture,
Design and Planning
The University of Sydney
Sydney, Australia
lian.loke@sydney.edu.au
Thida Sachathep
School of Architecture Design and
Planning
The University of Sydney
Sydney, NSW, Australia
thida.sachathep@sydney.edu.au
Zhaohua Zhou
Aective Interactions lab
The University of Sydney
Sydney, NSW, Australia
zzho6852@uni.sydney.edu.au
Phillip Gough
Design Lab, School of Architecture,
Design and Planning
The University of Sydney
Sydney, NSW, Australia
phillip.gough@sydney.edu.au
Abstract
Integrating ethics education in human-computer interaction (HCI)
programs is critical to training responsible industry practitioners.
Yet, there is a lack of practical educator-focused resources, which
facilitate reection on personal approaches to ethics education. We
conducted a series of nine generative participatory workshops with
15 educators to explore, design and seek feedback on the Ethics
Reexivity Canvas as a pedagogical resource. The canvas makes
the educator and learner positionality explicit to develop ethical
sensitivity, sensitise and situate a pedagogical plan, and iterate
and adapt over time. However, our ndings suggest that educators
experience tensions, depending on their pedagogical approach. We
contribute insight on how resources can align with education work
in HCI, help educators reect on a plurality of approaches to ethics,
use accessible language to stimulate curiosity towards ethics, and
provide scaolding to operationalize collaborative and personal
exploration.
CCS Concepts
•Human-centered computing
→
HCI theory, concepts and
models;Empirical studies in HCI.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
CHI ’25, Yokohama, Japan
©2025 Copyright held by the owner/author(s).
ACM ISBN 979-8-4007-1394-1/25/04
https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713574
Keywords
ethics, ethical sensitivity, education work, educator, reection, re-
exivity, canvas
ACM Reference Format:
Naseem Ahmadpour, Ajit G. Pillai, Wendy Qi Zhang, Lian Loke, Thida
Sachathep, Zhaohua Zhou, and Phillip Gough. 2025. Ethics Reexivity
Canvas: Resourcing Ethical Sensitivity for HCI Educators. In CHI Con-
ference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25), April 26–May
01, 2025, Yokohama, Japan. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 17 pages. https:
//doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713574
1 Introduction
At a workshop hosted as part of the CHI2021 conference [
23
], ter-
tiary educators, including some of the authors in this paper, dis-
cussed paradigms and approaches to integrate ethics education in
human-computer interaction (HCI), computer science (CS) and de-
sign. With over 40 educators and industry practitioners joining the
workshop from across the globe, we identied numerous opportuni-
ties to improve the way that ethics education is integrated into these
elds, particularly HCI. This included the need for resources and
the importance of empowering educators to explore ethics educa-
tional approaches that suits their pedagogy. Workshop participants
discussed their experience with a range of ethical philosophies that
were used in their teaching practice depending on subject, program
and student cohort. These included feminist theories, ethical conse-
quences, speculative approaches, and more. This leads us to now
ask “where to next?” The workshop brought to light how necessary
plurality of knowledge is, when considering ethics education in
HCI. It also highlights, through the experience of colleagues and
CHI ’25, April 26–May 01, 2025, Yokohama, Japan Ahmadpour et al.
peers around the world, that integrating ethics in HCI education is
challenging.
Past research into ethics education [
23
] highlights a pressing
need for new pedagogical approaches to the way that ethics is in-
cluded in HCI education. This need is in spite of active and ongoing
participation in this area from the academic HCI community. So,
how can we approach pedagogical and strategic decisions around
ethics in HCI programs, including in CS and design? We recognise,
through our own experience as educators, a need for resources,
(1) at an individual level to ground our education practice in our
own positionality, (2) for facilitating discussions within our local
teaching teams, and (3) more broadly in our collective education
work as a eld, particularly as the boundary of HCI crosses several
disciplines. We also wish to acknowledge that as a diverse eld,
the challenge is not simply a lack of knowledge or community,
but also a question of relevance of ethics to some educators in CS
and Design [
48
]. While the perspectives of participants at the CHI
workshop were informative, it is important that we also understand
positions of people who feel that the operational (or practical, as
opposed to critical) nature of their CS and Design classes negate
the need for ethics instruction to be integrated into their teaching.
A range of tools, methods and frameworks are available for ethical
design, which have also been applied to education contexts. Tools
and methods include speculative techniques (e.g. timelines, Futuris-
tic autobiographies [
17
]), card decks (e.g. Tarot Cards of Tech [
49
]),
among others. Approaches to ethics in design practice are also sup-
ported by principles and frameworks, such as bioethics [
53
], Design
Justice Principles [
19
], design for psychological wellbeing [
38
,
39
]
and others.
Current ethics education in HCI underestimates the importance
of training students to reexively consider their design decisions
as a trigger to ethical consequences and social reforms, as other
professions do [
21
,
24
]. Two research gaps have been identied
in this area, which were discussed in our CHI2021 workshop [
23
].
The rst gap reects a lack of knowledge around how ethics is
embedded into HCI education. Pargman and Lindberg [
33
] states
that existing discussions around ethics tend to focus on a general
perspective and are often presented in theoretical terms. This makes
it dicult for educators to adapt when teaching HCI students, who
often lack primary education in philosophy of ethics. The issue ne-
cessitates educators to develop their own ethical sensitivity to forge
appropriate ways to make ethics education relevant and engaging.
A second gap persists around HCI educators’ need for a guiding
direction that can help them to embed ethics in their practice, such
as a guideline akin to what Moor described in 1985: “not a xed
set of rules which one shellacs and hangs on the wall. Nor is com-
puter ethics the rote application of ethical principles to a value-free
technology” [
36
, p. 268-269] - certainly this is a long-standing need.
These gaps informed the direction of our project, with a research
aim to support educators to explore their own sensitivity, style
and approach towards ethics when making pedagogical decisions
in HCI curriculum design. These are the gaps we wish to address
through our research.
Before starting to ideate how we might move forward with any
pedagogical decision, it is meaningful to reect on our practice. Our
objective as HCI educators and researchers is to facilitate reection
and conversation around our own positionality, within our teaching
teams and with the eld more broadly, and the way that HCI edu-
cators introduce ethics into their own pedagogical practice - rather
than providing a singular approach. Research ndings suggest there
is value in creating a reective environment in both design prac-
tice [
9
] and education [
54
]. Within the scope of this project, we
aim to create scaolding and resources to guide reection on ethics
in the pedagogical space, which forms our contribution through
the research presented in this paper. Through a range of nine itera-
tive participatory workshops with 15 HCI educators, we explored
their approaches to, and experiences of, embedding ethics into their
practice. Based on ndings, we contribute the Ethics Reexivity
Canvas as a resource to support education work. We also provide
insights into the challenges and tensions of embedding ethics in
HCI education, which can be utilised by educators to develop their
own approaches. We hope our ndings can inform future conversa-
tions to enhance higher sensitivity to both the need for embedding
ethics in education and ways of doing so through educator-focused
resources such as the Ethical Reexivity Canvas.
2 Related Work
2.1 Ethics education in HCI
Research in ethics education in HCI (including the perspectives of
CS and design) pedagogy has identied a need for a more robust
and practical approach in teaching ethics [
23
]. This need arises,
at least in part, because of the many “public reckonings on how
technologies perpetuate and exacerbate societal biases, as well as
introduce new ones,” [
16
, p. 6:2]. It follows that the focus on ethics
in computing is expected and necessary [
16
]. Previous literature
reviews [
16
,
44
] have identied two key approaches, which have
been widely used to educate students in elds of machine learning,
science, technology and computing. The rst approach is grounded
in a Western philosophy, focusing on theories of consequentialism,
deontology and virtue ethics [
44
], while the second deals with is-
sues of data, privacy, and security [
16
,
47
]. Although approaches
within each are varied and cover a broad spectrum of ethical in-
struction, they are not cohesive, and may be dicult to translate in
practical terms for educational settings. This presents a challenge
for educators teaching students to address the evolving ethical
challenges surfaced by emerging technologies.
Fiesler et al. [
22
] argued that students should regularly engage
with ethical complexities. Rather than condensing ethics educa-
tion into a single subject, all parts of an educational curriculum
must have interwoven connections to ethics and ethical considera-
tions [
22
]. This would enable students to clearly see how ethical
theories are applied in a practical and relevant way, ultimately as-
sisting students in decision-making outside of the classroom and in
their future career [
21
]. Incorporating ethics into multiple subjects
in a curriculum will also mean that a growing number of HCI educa-
tors must be familiar with teaching and discussing ethics [
22
]. This
perspective complements Hu and Furchert’s view that “while the
ethics code is full of the obligation to design systems with ethical
concern in mind, the typical computing ethics textbook does not
help one learn how to do that” [
28
, p.26]. Hu and Furchert suggest
that students are often unable to eectively and holistically learn
about ethics from textbooks. Instead, a balance of ethical knowledge
Ethics Reflexivity Canvas: Resourcing Ethical Sensitivity for HCI Educators CHI ’25, April 26–May 01, 2025, Yokohama, Japan
can be achieved with practising “usage” objectives, which encour-
ages students to dene what they would do with the knowledge
they acquire in class [
28
, p26]. This implies that we must equip
educators with knowledge and tools to explore various approaches,
plan and embed ethics across a range of teaching subjects. It is this
opportunity that we hope to address through the study presented
in this paper.
While a number of methods and tools from research and practice
have been applied in an educational context, and may be practical
to ground ethics learning outcomes in HCI, there remains a gap to
enable educators to reect on multifaceted approaches in this space.
Such approaches should prepare students, as future practitioners, to
navigate a complex and evolving landscape. This builds on the sug-
gestion from Gray et al. [
26
] that no single design method can fully
address the ethical complexities encountered in HCI [
46
]. Wong et
al. [
52
] also propose that ethics education goes beyond providing
tools and methods to students that act as checklists. Instead, edu-
cators should consider more creative approaches to weave ethical
thinking deeply into students’ understanding of the technology
design process. These ndings further highlight the important role
of educators who shape curriculum and learning outcomes. We are
motivated to oer educator-centred support resources in this paper.
2.2 Developing ethical sensitivity
Ethical Sensitivity (ES) is a framework for studying ethics in techno-
logical design, and examines ethics from a broad social perspective.
This framework has been used to draw out observable factors of
ethics in professional settings, to provide a better understanding of
ethical behaviour in design teams [13].
The ES framework conceptually consists of three aspects; an
awareness of the ethical problem, the specication of the problem
situation and the judgements that lead to the design decision [13].
Rest [
43
] discussed the latter and argued that judgement of the
design decision consists of three stages: rst, the development of
an ethically desirable course of action; second, the decision of what
one intends to do; and third, the execution and implementation of
that intention. Arguably, HCI educators who are keenly aware of
ethical problems in computing, choose to embed methodologies
that reect their ES and take actions, make decisions and imple-
ment those in their practice. For example, an educator may develop
sensitivity about the issues of race in computing, take action to
introduce critical race theory [
37
] to their students, decide to em-
bed discussions in class to problematise race for students, and then
implement appropriate assessment tasks in the subject to elicit re-
ection on the topic. However, we are not aware of any resources
for HCI educators to help them explore and reect on their own
ethical sensitivities. Such a resource should support educators to
explore various pedagogical possibilities, before planning a course
of action, deciding which tools, methods or processes they would
use in their subject or program of teaching, and inform them how
to implement those through a syllabus and assessment plan for
their students. If we are to empower educators in ethics education,
we must address this gap in ES.
There are a number of examples on how ES is used outside of
HCI, which highlight the value of the framework for pedagogy. For
example, Esmaelzadeh et al. [
20
] explore ES in nursing education to
generate student sensitivity towards various aspects of the practice
such as care, errors, and communication among others. Another
area of application for ES is undergraduate dental ethics curricu-
lum [
10
,
11
] to enhance key competencies among students such
as their moral reasoning and self-assessment to examine if one is
being unethical or unprofessional. Bebeau [
10
] specically refers
to usefulness of techniques such as reecting on specic practical
situations that may bring about ethical dilemmas and tensions in
decision making. These examples demonstrate the relevance of the
framework for education, broadly, however a gap persists in terms
of how ES knowledge can be applied to HCI education.
To support ES in HCI education, we propose to provide the edu-
cators with a lens and opportunity to reect on their practice and
consider specic situations that underpin their values, tensions
and the implications of their pedagogical planning and decisions,
similar to Bebeau [
10
] . Values and tensions shape the approach
taken to design and critique of technology [
42
] and inuence the
practices surroundings its use [
32
]. It is therefore reasonable to
assume that values and tensions also inuence educator’s decisions
in designing their curriculum in technology design. For example,
one may value and gain expertise in feminist theories in HCI and
nd this a valuable educational approach to ground students un-
derstanding and “commitment to issues such as agency, fullment,
identity, equity, empowerment, and social justice” [
8
, p.1301]. Creat-
ing the opportunity and resources to develop ES through reection,
addresses the issue of professional agency raised by Lindberg and
Ceratto Pargman [
33
]. They found that current discussions of ethics
tend to focus on general perspectives and are often presented in a
theoretical form, lacking foundational relevance for educators who
often do not have a primary education in ethical philosophy [
33
].
We agree with Lindberg and Ceratto Pargman that we must explore
“educational imaginaries” [
33
, p.234] to cultivate HCI educators’
agency in an evolving eld.
3 Our approach
Based on the above, we aim to create an opportunity for HCI educa-
tors to engage in reexivity, examine their values and tensions, and
explore suitable directions for their practice based on a developed
ES. By reexivity, we refer to a pedagogic strategy of reection and
iteration, as we acknowledge reection is a dynamic process [
2
]
and requires time and opportunity to evolve [
31
]. We note that
reection is grounded in lived experience [
25
] and therefore ac-
knowledge that any ES resources for educators must capture their
perspectives, values and expertise. To that end, it is appropriate to
consider educator’s positionality and support their “standpoint” as
they begin to develop ethical sensitivity in their education work.
Standpoint theory is a feminist perspective asserting that “knowl-
edge stems from social position” [
27
]. This perspective is of par-
ticular relevance in the context of our research, as the social and
professional position of the educator is pivotal to their ethical sen-
sitivity, their pedagogical decisions and, ultimately, the way they
shape their students’ minds. Brookeld’s [
15
] research on becoming
a reective teacher informs our intention to encourages educators
to be aware of their own positions and biases, as he reects “I won-
der what my unconscious biases are and how I can teach...” [
15
,
p.1]. Reection on positionality does not end with the educator.
CHI ’25, April 26–May 01, 2025, Yokohama, Japan Ahmadpour et al.
There is value in considering who the students are, as Brookeld
notes, “students in our classrooms are increasingly more diverse” [
6
,
p.1]. Therefore, we address reection on students and impact on
classroom dynamics in our research with educators.
As educators in the eld of HCI, we draw insight from our own
positionality as well as experiences and challenges of embedding
ethics in our teaching. Our approaches are diverse and individu-
alised as our training and worldviews span geographies, disciplines
such as design, CS and engineering, and theoretical expertise. As
Beck and Wynne conrm, the process of individualisation is the
product of reexivity [
12
]. Therefore, we hope the knowledge co-
produced in this research and the proposed resource could be an
asset for other educators in the eld to reexively individualise
their teaching.
3.1 Positionality
The decisions made in this research are intricately linked to our po-
sitionality, which we begin to describe in this section and continue
to weave throughout the paper to clarify impact on our process.
Intersectionality is core to our positionality and also informs the
research presented in this paper. Intersectionality articulates the
social experience of a person’s identity [
45
] shaped by dynamic
crossovers among factors [
51
] such as age, race, gender, culture,
socioeconomic background, education, and more, to give visibility
to intersections that are often ignored [51].
We are a group of researchers and educators with diverse and in-
tersecting cultural and lived experiences and academic backgrounds.
Our teaching experience in HCI and interaction design programs
ranges from 4 to 15+ years. Three educators in our team have un-
dergraduate degrees in engineering or computer science. All of
us have one or more postgraduate or doctoral degrees relevant to
HCI. Three educators in our team also have the experience of being
program directors: managing and setting directions for (under/post)-
graduate degree programs in HCI. Our positionalities are shaped
by a range of global experiences that span South and South-East
Asia, the Middle East, Europe, North America, and Australia. De-
spite these geographies, we all acknowledge that the majority of
our training and professional experience is either informed by or
situated in western academic frameworks and systems of knowl-
edge production. Some of us identify as people of colour, and one
identies as white. Some of us have lived experience of invisible dis-
abilities. We are critically aware of these positionalities, while also
recognising certain values that we tend to centre in our teaching
such as care, sustainability, and justice. Collectively, we value the
co-construction of knowledge with our students in teaching spaces
particularly in relation to ethical inquiry in technology design and
computing. All of us are based at the same institution and teach our
students about positionality across a range of dierent subjects. We
have developed our own institutional teaching resources over the
years, with hands-on activities and exercises to create safe spaces
in our classroom, and discuss with our students how we might
acknowledge our privileges and intersectional identities, and why
doing so matters. We all teach some components of ethics in our
classes, and one of us teaches a subject entirely dedicated to design
ethics. These lived and professional experiences directly inform
the approach taken in this project. Our sensibilities about what
resources are likely to be useful for educators inform our design of
the pedagogical resource proposed in this paper. As educators, we
reached out to our professional network (globally) to invite others
to participate in this study, all of whom were also situated in higher
education institutions in the western context.
4 Method
4.1 Educators and process
Our research involved two stages and used an iterative participa-
tory approach through generative workshops [
3
,
42
]. This approach
acknowledges that participatory design research is dynamic and the
knowledge co-production evolves throughout the process. There-
fore, data collected through workshops may be analysed at various
points of saturation, used to iterate the line of inquiry, and seek
further feedback from knowledge holders. As a result, workshops
are iteratively rened to engage people in deep discussions. This
approach follows the Scandinavian tradition of participatory design,
whereby workers iteratively discussed and developed policies, pro-
cesses and technologies relevant to their workplace in collaboration
with unions, technologists, researchers and policymakers [25].
We recruited educators teaching into HCI and interaction design
subjects (often teaching into multiple programs) in higher educa-
tion. The educators’ career experience varied, between 4 to 20 years
teaching and planning subjects in undergraduate and postgraduate
programs in universities situated in a Western culture with interna-
tional student cohorts. The faculty where participating educators
are employed includes a diverse mix of ethnic and gender identities
which is represented in educators in this study. Educators in this
study were not required to reveal their own demographic infor-
mation. We did not recruit to capture any specic demographic
groups.
In total, 15 individual educators participated in nine participatory
workshops (see Table 1): 11 educators in stage one and ve educa-
tors in stage two (one educator participated in both stages). Of these,
12 educators held a PhD degree in HCI, CS or Interaction Design
and three were pursuing doctoral studies in HCI while undertaking
teaching responsibilities in their institutions. Educators identied
their preferred pronouns; eight used she/her/hers pronouns and
seven used he/him/his pronouns. Each workshop lasted for 1 to 1.5
hours and was facilitated by one to two of the authors who are also
HCI educators. All workshops but one were conducted online over
Zoom, based on educator preferences and availability. Qualitative
data was collected across all workshops through audio recordings
(with educator permission), researcher notes, and annotations on
paper or Miro. All educators gave written informed consent. The
project was approved by the ethics committee at the University of
Sydney, ref. 2019/010. Workshop details are listed in Table 1.
Stage one: The rst stage consisted of six participatory work-
shops [
23
]. The aim of this phase was to iteratively identify and
verify approaches to developing sensitivities and challenges educa-
tors faced when embedding ethics in their practice. Each workshop
involved one to two educators to provide a broad range of per-
spectives. Workshops were used to create a foundation for the
project and inform the second stage. In workshops 1 & 2, educa-
tors were encouraged, through open ended questions, to discuss
Ethics Reflexivity Canvas: Resourcing Ethical Sensitivity for HCI Educators CHI ’25, April 26–May 01, 2025, Yokohama, Japan
and position their approach to embedding ethics in their past and
present teaching practice. As shown in Figure 1, educators began
the workshop by sharing their experience, then identied a specic
subject they teach, and specifying steps taken to bring ethics ed-
ucation into classroom with students. Next, they unpacked more
specic actions taken during: subject preparation, delivery during
the teaching term, and assessing learning outcomes after the course
was completed. For each of these, they detailed their plans, ethical
considerations, impacts on decisions, and outlined changes that, in
their mind, would be appropriate based on their experience during
semester.
The research team identied approaches described by educa-
tors through a thematic analysis, in preparation for workshops
3 & 4 (Fig 2). In workshops 3 & 4, another cohort of educators
reviewed these discussion themes and further discussion the fol-
lowing question: What are your experiences and challenges with this
theme when making decisions to embed ethics into your teaching prac-
tice? Picking, connecting and reecting on discussion themes they
found relevant to them, the educators outlined examples of both
experiences and challenges, and identied what might help them
respond to the challenges (see Fig 2). These workshops were critical
in highlighting the need for ethical sensitivity and its grounding
in educator and student positionality. Finally, in workshops 5 & 6,
another group of educators engaged in brainstorming and paper
prototyping activities [
50
] to co-create a resource to aid their teach-
ing. They reviewed high level themes drawn from the analysis of
all workshops and used drawing, annotation, and sticky notes to
imagine and prototype the resource components and format. The
nal resource took the form of a canvas for ethics reexivity. This
canvas was repeatedly identied as a preferred form by educators
as they found it exible, and it facilitated exploration and reection
on teaching practice. The evolution of the Canvas in workshops
5 & 6 is shown in Fig 3. The canvas was nalised by the research
team at the end of stage one to create a prototype to test and rene
in stage two (see Fig 4).
Stage two: The second stage aimed to collect feedback on the
prototype canvas using walkthrough testing. Depending on whether
the workshop was online or in-person, and the educators prefer-
ences, the ethics reexivity canvas was presented on paper or Miro
to ve educators in workshops 7 - 9 (some educators printed the
canvas to use even when the workshop was online). Each work-
shop included one to two educators depending on their availability.
Educators tested the canvas by picking a subject they teach and
planning how to embed ethics in it. They were encouraged to think
out loud and annotate the canvas while using it (see Fig 4). At the
end of the session educators provided further feedback, not only
on the canvas, but also broadly in terms of how teaching resources
could be designed to support ethics reexivity, which were used to
improve and nalise the canvas. We used this generative participa-
tory approach to open up possibilities for meaningful discussions
with educators as experts of their own experiences [25].
Data Analysis: Audio recordings of workshops were transcribed
and combined with researcher notes and annotations on canvas
for thematic analysis. We analysed data from stage one separately
from stage two, given that the rst stage mainly revealed educa-
tor experiences and challenges (presented in Section 5), whereas
stage two identied feedback on the ethics reexivity canvas and
directions for future work (presented in Section 6). The two sets
of ndings provide broad insights for the eld, and we hope, will
inspire other resources in the future. The transcripts were coded
and further grouped using reexive thematic analysis (RTA) ap-
proach described by Braun and Clarke [
14
] to develop, analyse and
interpret patterns across our dataset. Reexivity in RTA involves
“critical reection” to interrogate our role and positionality and how
that shapes and impacts data interpretation [
14
]. We present our
positionality in section 3.1. Specically, we followed an inductive
RTA (bottom-up) approach whereby codes and themes are driven
by data [18] to nd rather than pre-existing theories.
Codes and themes were developed by the rst two authors and
reviewed by all authors to iteratively rene them. For example in
stage one, we identied two themes. Our codes suggested some
educators take a practice lens in their education, with focus on
specic technical skills, whereas others might take a more critical
stance with focus on ethical interrogation and speculation. These
were grouped under a theme labelled “tensions in teaching ethics in
HCI.” Additionally, we used codes such as “recognising and locating
a lens based on the educator positionality” for quotes related to
a philosophical or ethical theory used by the educator, and put
this under a theme labelled “developing ethical sensitivities when
embedding ethics in HCI teaching” together with codes such as
“recognising the diversity of learners/students” and “recognising
the need to engage with the positionality.”
For stage two, codes formed three themes that highlight qualities
which the canvas (and future ethics education resources) must
support. This includes themes of: open-endedness to enable self-
reection and gauge ethical sensitivity, using accessible language,
and creating scaolding to avoid unnecessary cognitive overload
when planning syllabus for a subject. We report on these ndings
in Sections 5 & 6, and identify educators with codes that signify the
workshop they participated in, for example W1E1 refers to educator
1 who participated in workshop 1.
4.2 Canvas design
The authors worked together to nalise the rst draft of the Canvas
based on ndings in Stage one. They used sketching, discussion
and quick paper prototyping [
50
] to iterate a template-based design
(i.e. canvas) as it was identied as a useful form by educators in
workshops 5 & 6. Peters et al. [
40
,
41
] suggested that templates are
often used in design for collaboration because of their exibility
and ubiquity across many domains of design. Lockton [
35
] states
that templates are often used in design toolkits as a way of doing
activities and aid in implementing particular principles in practice.
This was precisely our intent: to guide a way of thinking and taking
the educator on a journey of discovery to explore and embed self-
identied and value-based principles. All ndings from stage one
were considered in the nal design of the canvas, to embed qualities
such as positionality and create a space for exploration of ES to aid
in planning syllabi. The rst theme was particularly important in
informing our decision to integrate elements of positionality in the
canvas. The team iteratively tested the canvas amongst themselves
and carefully considered the material based on their own teaching
practice before testing it in stage two. The feedback in the second
CHI ’25, April 26–May 01, 2025, Yokohama, Japan Ahmadpour et al.
Figure 1: Template used to conduct workshop 1 and 2 in Stage One, to understand how educators embed ethics in syllabus
before, during and after a teaching period.
Figure 2: Template used to conduct workshop 3 and 4 in Stage One, with themes drawn from pervious workshops (1 and 2).
Educators reected on themes and discuss relevant experiences and challenges in their teaching.
Ethics Reflexivity Canvas: Resourcing Ethical Sensitivity for HCI Educators CHI ’25, April 26–May 01, 2025, Yokohama, Japan
Stage 1, involving 11 educators
Workshop No. Description Workshop activities
Workshops 1 & 2
Educators positioned their approach to
ethics in their teaching practice (past
and present) and identied alternative ap-
proaches (see Fig 1)
Educators (i) mapped ethics taught in their HCI/Design subjects, (ii)
shared how they prepare, embed, evaluate teaching ethics, (iii) dis-
cussed “what if ” they could change things to enhance ethical sensitiv-
ity in their teaching practice.
Workshops 3 & 4
Educators gave feedback on discussion
themes drawn from workshops 1 & 2 and
discussed their experiences and challenges
(see Fig 2)
Educators (i) reviewed seven discussion themes, (ii) picked the themes
relevant to their teaching, (iii) outlined their experiences and chal-
lenges, (iv) made connections, (v) identied what might help them
address the challenge.
Workshops 5 & 6
Educators engaged in generative prototyp-
ing activities to co-create and iterate a re-
source to aid their teaching (see Fig 3)
Educators (i) reviewed a process to explore ethical sensitivity; recognise
( learner and educator positionality), respond (by situating, sensitising
and planing their syllabus with ethics embedded) and adapt (through
continuous improvement), (ii) brainstormed a resource (a canvas) to put
the ES process into practice, (iii) used sketching and paper prototyping
to rene and iterate the resource.
Stage 2, involving 5 educators
Workshops 7-9
Educators provided feedback on the ethics
reexivity canvas which had been nalised
by the authors (see Fig 4).
Educators (i) picked a specic subject they teach, (ii) tested the canvas
by performing a walkthough, annotating the canvas while thinking out
aloud, (iii) suggested changes to improve the usability and usefulness
of the canvas.
Table 1: Details of the two-stage generative participatory process to iteratively identify and verify experiences of tensions,
sensitivities, practices, and challenges educators faced when embedding ethics in HCI education. The process resulted in
insights, iterative development of the Ethical Reexivity Canvas in workshops, and testing of the canvas. In total, 15 educators
were involved in the process, with one educator participating in both stages.
stage was used to rene the canvas, which is presented in Fig 6.
A walkthrough of the canvas is presented in Section 7. The nal
template is available as a supplementary material.
5 Findings from stage one: educators
approaches, experiences of tensions, and
challenges when embedding ethics in teaching
5.1 Tensions in teaching ethics in HCI
Educators demonstrated diversity in approaches and intentions
when teaching ethics. Some educators described a distinct sepa-
ration between two teaching approaches: showing a comparison
between practical aspects of HCI & design versus the critical aspects.
Depending on their preferred approach, educators in the former
group might experience tensions when asked to embed ethics in
their teaching, whereas the latter group of educators demonstrated
intention to balance practical with critical skills.
Tension due to a dichotomy of practice vs critical lens. Some
educators considered the dichotomy of “practical” versus “critical”
to gauge the need for including ethics as a topic of teaching (see a
summary in Table 2). Practice-focused educators believed that prac-
tical subjects such as coding and programming are about “making”
skills and therefore do not require ethics theories to be embedded.
When asked about their reasoning for doing so, this caused tension
for these educators, particularly when we asked about the impor-
tance of, or approaches to, locating an ethical lens for teaching in
HCI. They felt that their personal interest in ethics (or lack thereof)
was separate to how they teach. One educator expressed that posi-
tionality is related to personal politics and that a class environment
should encourage a broader view beyond the educator’s personal
views, “In a [project-based subject] in design [with] an organisa-
tional or a business model [...] I felt like I couldn’t comment on my
ethics. There might be people that are quite business-orientated
and they’re here to learn about business [or learn about] what’s
the winning [design] strategy” W6E2. Another educator agreed
that ethics is not core to their teaching of technical skills while
also conrming the importance of their religious lens within their
personal life and its inuence on their practice as a whole, “my
religious convictions shape how I interact with people, and that
is probably the most powerful inuence in my life. That shapes
how I see my job and how I see my role as an educator” W4E2.
Through further probing, it became clear that their religious view
was integral to their positionality and yet they believed teaching
can be a value-free practice, “so the lens could also be like: [...]
I decided I’m going to take a neutral stance. So I’m not going to
push any values or opinions on my students” W4E2. For them, the
classroom focused on practising HCI and design skills rather than
critical reection on design, “it sounds intellectually lazy or ethi-
cally lazy. But I teach [a technical subject]. I’m primarily interested
in helping people design new [interactions]” W4E2.
For practice-focused educators, focusing on technical aspects
of technologies meant that the teaching environment was synony-
mous with the design space, with students and educators as neutral
actors (note this is the view of educators in the study and not the
authors of this paper), “I take a fairly neutral stance and impartial
position in my teaching and research. I think I do that in order to
CHI ’25, April 26–May 01, 2025, Yokohama, Japan Ahmadpour et al.
Figure 3: Images of the Canvas evolution, as designed and iterated in the brainstorming workshops 5-6. Educators used sketching
and annotation on whiteboard (A, C) and paper (D), and paper prototyping with post-it notes (B), to co-create and rene the
Ethics Reexivity Canvas.
Figure 4: Image of educator annotation on the Ethics Reflexivity Canvas used during testing in workshops 7-9 in stage two.
Ethics Reflexivity Canvas: Resourcing Ethical Sensitivity for HCI Educators CHI ’25, April 26–May 01, 2025, Yokohama, Japan
let students adopt their own perspectives and really challenge their
own assumptions and biases” W2E1. For this educator, ethics is
encapsulated by responsive and accessible design, however they
felt there is a risk of oversimplifying complex issues into a mini-
malist perspective, “I think that’s probably the best word that we
can use for ethics in terms of design is responsiveness [...] so for
someone with low visibility, you have the design that can adapt
to have higher contrast for them” W2E1. Other educators spoke
about ethics in terms of design consequences, however this came
as a tension with ensuring learning outcomes catered to their stu-
dent’s professional career, “what’s going to be the usefulness of
that technology for the students and their professional life after
the degrees [...] that said, of course there is awareness of potential
harmful aspects of those technologies” W4E1.
Teaching with intention: a holistic and critical approach.
Some educators demonstrated variations of reexivity, expressing
intention to bring into their teaching a personally signicant or crit-
ical academic lens. What emerges is a holistic approach to teaching
that implores students to be critical and reective thinkers them-
selves. Some educators expressed that their lived experiences and
positionality informed their ethical perspective, “I think the per-
sonal approach runs through everything, both the practice and the
process [of teaching] because it guides how I think about projects
[I assign to my students] and [even in my research] how I would
complete the form for the process of ethical approval. My teaching
practice and my design practice is a hundred percent guided by
who I am as a person” W3E1. Another educator shared that their
personal positionality is a point of reection for surrounding struc-
tures and consequently provides a lens into their practice, “I have
this kind of unique [...] experience in engineering, [and..] years
[of] experience in the arts that collectively shaped my worldview.
And my work looks at how engineering as a practice is entangled
with social structures, how power structures [...] aect engineering
[...] and how engineering aects them back” W5E2. Educators who
set ethical intention to bring criticality into their teaching often
valued personal positionality in teaching and used personal lived
experience as an opportunity for reection in classroom, “when
you build that ethical awareness and make [students] feel like you
are the users of these products at the same time [as] you are the
designers. So you have such a wide range of knowledge that you
can reect upon. Why not bring it into your classroom?” W5E1.
Personal experiences were also an avenue for establishing empathy
and connecting to students, “providing these multiple pathways in
which to engage is actually something that I tried to foster in my
class just based on my own living experiences, [for example] my ex-
periences of being an international student” W8E1. What educators
considered an ethical lens was varied and linked to their personal
values. One educator noted that valuing lived experiences of others
in the technology design process is part of teaching inclusivity, “I
guess an ethical approach is not ever classing an edge case, where
designers or an organisation might feel that it’s not commercially
viable designing something for a marginalised community. So I
think the one thing I always make a big emphasis in my teaching,
regardless of what university is ensuring that design is inclusive
and in order to get to inclusiveness, you need collaboration” W2E2.
5.2 Developing ethical sensitivities when
embedding ethics in HCI teaching
We sought a way of framing the process educators follow to devel-
oping ethical sensitivities in their subjects, as our ndings show
how important it is for educators to embed ethics in their teaching.
The embedding does not occur before the framing. The process is
iterative (within the course of educator’s teaching) and involves
a number of components which we outline, as shown in Fig 5. It
requires continuous reection for the educator to recognise their
positionality, and who the learners (students) are. Reection then
can surface considerations in terms of how to engage learners with
ethics in HCI in a way that captures their interest. The educator
responds to the surfaced considerations. They situate their teach-
ing in the context, sensitise the teaching to orient towards a plan
and take action to execute it. Finally, the educators adapt to situa-
tions as teaching evolves with time, changes to cohort of learners,
subjects taught in HCI and more. We elaborate on each of these
components below. This framing is key to our understanding of the
process that our designed resource should support.
Recognise: The process of developing ethical sensitivity to make
pedagogical decisions involves an exploration of who the learn-
ers and the educator are and extends to considerations of theories,
methods and tools to engage learners in reecting on ethics in HCI.
We chose to use the term learner (rather than student) here to
refer to a broad spectrum of those being taught across, undergrad-
uate, postgraduate, doctoral and professional training, given what
we heard in our workshops. We found educators often consider
personal and practical inuences on their own and the learner’s
understanding of ethics, and take into account their background
and perspectives on existing ethics frameworks, “I don’t know all
the things that are socially, culturally relevant to them now. So I
think it’s really important that we can still tap into what means
something to our students... that helps us connect” W2E1. Educa-
tors locate a lens or broad knowledge base such as philosophical,
theoretical or personal, “we do teach from our own perspective, we
do provide examples, maybe from experiences, work research that
we’ve done ourselves, everything is up to interpretation” W2E1, and
“it is about bringing together lots of dierent lenses, new theoretical
and philosophical positions on design each week across the whole
[semester]” W2E2. These may be then grounded and personalised
further based on the educator’s research, practical examples they
have access to, “we really need to consider [teaching to students to
consider in their projects] what this existing situation is, what the
preferred situation is, and how/who does that preferred situation
maybe benet and who does it not benet and ethics falls within
that. So [I want learners to consider] do you make life better for one
group of people while disenfranchising another?” W1E2. Educators
then engage a feasible framework that can help them integrate the
philosophical or theoretical knowledge of ethics, “principles [in
bioethics] are kind of core principles and there’s an opportunity to
build on those but [I need to be] framing them in an actionable way”
W1E1. The educators recognised the limitations of ethics education
in the class and aspired to expand the learner’s horizon to consider
plurality of knowledge, “I think that by providing a design toolkit,
we’re limiting the understanding of designers. I am trying to expand
that, [help learners consider] there’s not one way” W2E1.
CHI ’25, April 26–May 01, 2025, Yokohama, Japan Ahmadpour et al.
Tensions arising due to
perceived dichotomy of
Educators’ assumptions associated with practical and critical perspectives on teaching
ethics in HCI
Technical skills versus The-
oretical literacy
Practical perspectives suggest technical subjects such as programming are about “making” skills
and do not require ethics theories to be embedded. Critical perspectives nd ethics is not subject
dependant.
Academic versus Industry
relevance
Practical perspectives suggest ethics and industry needs do not align, and student learning outcomes
should t these perceived industry needs. Critical perspectives note that graduates shape the future
industry.
Embedding personal values
versus Neutral teaching
Practical perspectives advocate for neutrality in teaching and view ethics as personal value that
should not be shared with students. Critical perspectives believe values inform all choices and
neutrality is not possible.
Complexity versus Simpli-
cation of ethics
Practical perspectives assume bringing ethics into teaching is a risk, e.g. it may oversimplify
complex issues into a minimalist perspective. Critical perspectives suggest dealing with ethical
complexity deepens students view of ethical consequences.
Table 2: When faced with a decision to include ethics in their teaching, educators discussed four types of tensions due to a
perceived dichotomy of “practical” versus “critical” teaching approach. These are presented along with exemplars to highlight
assumptions associated with practical and critical perspectives. This categorisation does not imply a binary of practice and
critical reection. A combination of such tensions might be experienced by various educators.
Figure 5: A framing of the process through which educators reect on their own and learners positionality to recognise the
need and ways of engaging them, responding to this need by situating and sensitising their teaching to develop a plan, and
adapting iteratively to the context of their teaching ethics in HCI.
Respond. Educators respond to their understanding of ethical
sensitivity needed in their teaching based on this recognition. They
respond by situating their teaching subject, sensitising it to the
learning outcomes they want learners to engage with, and then
develop a plan. Educators found it important to situate the subject
in the broader context of the delivery from zooming wide and into
details. Without collaboration on the degree-level curriculum, ed-
ucators nd it challenging to clearly know what to include into a
subject syllabus, how to avoid replication across multiple subjects,
or how to build on the ethical understanding learners gain in dif-
ferent subjects of their degree program, “I think what would be
interesting to me to know, and would inform my teaching, would be
understanding what my students are learning across the program”
W2E2. Educators sensitise their teaching by remaining connected
to what is happening outside of the teaching space, in the indus-
try and society, to foresee how their teaching would contribute
to societal changes, “we’re looking at the future and [also] at the
moment. Looking at the social context, looking at what’s happen-
ing within our communities, within nations, across the world. And
we’re looking at an industry perspective” W2E2. However, educa-
tors also noted they found it challenging at times to update ethics
content while considering the constant changes in industry de-
mands, “what isn’t just theory and culture but its application. That
may inform where they work, where they get a job. Industry en-
gagement goes into that” W2E2, and “we need to strike a balance
between what has been done and written in books to actually what
happens and ethical implications of that practice” W1E1. These con-
siderations are then consolidated into a plan. Ethical sensitivity and
responsiveness were repeatedly mentioned during the discussions
of what educators wish for their learners to take away from class,
“what’s going to make someone not only a competitive graduate
but also responsible, socially aware [...] because that’s going to
Ethics Reflexivity Canvas: Resourcing Ethical Sensitivity for HCI Educators CHI ’25, April 26–May 01, 2025, Yokohama, Japan
add to their competitiveness” W1E2. To advance the planning, the
educators spoke about the need for scaolding the subject structure
and syllabus to ensure coherence and relevance, “are we missing
anything? What kinds of topics, or what kinds of cultures are we
leaving behind when you only got 13 weeks of content?” W1E1.
Adapt. Embedding ethics into teaching remains open-ended, for
educators to adapt at various points of teaching to lessons learned
and the evolving ethical sensitivity. Educators iteratively rene
their approach and syllabus through self-reection, feedback from
learners and community. These areas play a key role in assisting
educators to make decisions, “reecting on what did or didn’t work
collaborating with the teaching sta, which is, I think, really im-
portant. They openly give me feedback about what they thought
needs to be improved or was great and then incorporating that in
the next version” W1E1.
6 Findings from stage two: Feedback on Ethics
Reexivity Canvas
The themes identied in the previous section, were used in brain-
storming workshops 5-6 and the outcome pointed to a preference
for a canvas with components shown in Fig 5. The research team
then nalised the Ethics Reexivity Canvas design, highlighting
those components and list of prompts to help educators reect. The
canvas was tested in workshops 7-9. Throughout the testing pro-
cess, we received feedback from educators that enabled us to rene
the language and ow of the prompts, however the overall design
of the canvas was well received and did not change throughout
the testing process. The nal canvas is shown in 6. The thoughtful
feedback in these testing workshops highlight insights that may be
useful in development of any future resource to support ethics edu-
cation in HCI. The feedback broadly describes why such a resource
is helpful for self reection, how it can be made accessible, and
in what ways it can provide structure for syllabus and curriculum
planning.
6.1 Enabling self-reection to gauge ethical
sensitivity
The resource should be an invitation to explore and open possibili-
ties of what ethics can be for the educator, “I get to look at the term
ethics beyond the stereotype of standard right or wrong” W9E1.
With this broadening of perspective, educators spoke about how
the canvas encouraged them to reect on a personal vision of ethics
in their teaching, “it aims at teaching ethics to the students, but
also it makes you interrogate your own ethics as you go through it.
It inverts that gaze to the educator. That’s something new because
usually [teaching] is directed [at] the students” W8E1. Focus on the
concept of reection as a starting point, rather than practical details
of syllabus planning, was received positively, “other resources are
usually much more prescriptive [...] this last part ’Adapt’ [...] you
don’t always [pause to look] back and reconsider and see what
worked, what didn’t. I also feel like that’s not necessarily embed-
ded in the current research practices. When we’re looking at for
example subject outlines, there’s the closing the loop section [for
us to write what has changed since last year..] one is tempted to
write no changes have been made to the [subject] [...so that] it will
get approved [by the degree program director] without any issues”
W8E1.
Thought provoking prompts and questions on the canvas en-
abled educators to develop ethical sensitivity with openness to new
ideas or ways of working. One educator suggested the prompts
under Sensitise helped them see “how I can expose students to dif-
ferent values. In my experience, what I assume to be the right way
of doing something might not be someone else’s perspective” W7E1.
They noted the canvas demonstrated a way of thinking through the
questions which opened them to new understandings of ethics, “for
myself, it would just be using that [the canvas] to reect, a prompt
for me to be thinking about these in designing or delivering the
content. But I don’t know how much of it I articulate outwardly”
W6E2. Multiple educators shared this view, highlighting that similar
resources do not need to directly point to specic teaching content
but rather open a space for them to exibly question and explore
their ethical standpoint and practice. Still, while the majority found
prompts like recognise your personal and practical inuences in the
Educator section were useful, a few were hesitant about the follow
up prompt that read consider your positionality (see Fig 6). One
educator noted that in some ethical frameworks such as bioethics,
positionality is less connected to its practice, “in the fourth wave
of HCI, we talk a lot about positionality, [whereas in] bioethics,
we don’t talk about positionality. Because it’s supposed to be kind
of disconnected from that in some way. [...] it doesn’t have roots
in feminism or personal faith” W6E1. This type of nding reveals
further that the resource needs to remain exible to engage educa-
tors with various perspectives and diverse interests in theoretical
framing of ethics.
6.2 Accessible language around ethics
The language in the canvas should be free of jargon and invite
educators to explore existing ethical knowledge and resources,
rather than giving the impression that a knowledge of ethics and
ethical frameworks is needed. In the initial canvas design, we had
listed a number of ethical framings, as examples, under the Educator
section, e.g. feminist theory, standpoint theory. Some educators
were not familiar with the given examples and assumed they needed
to be, “it’s feeling like you should already know [these theories].
This can be a bit of a challenge because [...] I couldn’t say necessarily
that when I studied design, I was ever taught about ethics [in that
way]” W6E2. The educators expressed how providing more context
or prompts to approach ethics would provide them with motivation
to research, read and expand their own knowledge. Some suggested
a recorded module or on-boarding session, “[it would be helpful
to] provide an hour long seminar and to give the framework [of]
where you’re coming from, [...] what to consider. [Otherwise] it
can be a presumption of I should know this, but I’m not sure what I
should. I don’t know what your denition of what I should know is”
W6E2. Deconstructing vague terms could also allow educators from
dierent backgrounds and training to use the canvas, as we note
educators in HCI programs we conducted our research with came
from diverse backgrounds ranging from CS to design, “unpack it
for people to make it more inclusive to people who don’t know
[...our own] training [...] shapes by the kind of disciplinary training
[we provide to our students]” W8E1.
CHI ’25, April 26–May 01, 2025, Yokohama, Japan Ahmadpour et al.
Our strategy in nalising Ethics Reexivity Canvas, therefore,
was to avoid both jargon and prescriptive language to make it ac-
cessible to educators and assist exploration of what is meaningful
to their teaching practice. In doing so, some educators questioned
whether the term “ethics” should be mentioned at all. Varied opin-
ions were voiced, “I think it’s good to call it ethics. And then the
way that the educator has it in their learning outcomes, or has it in
their slides or whatever; they are the ones [...] to make that decision
about whether they want to use a dierent term about that” W6E1,
and “If I choose the term responsible design, then it’s up to me as
the educator, then ethics may be one part of that. [...for example]
probably something to do with people and something to do with
the planet; they might touch on ethics, but I can have that kind of
ethics as part of [a..] larger narrative” W6E1. In the end, we kept the
ethics as part of the canvas name. This feedback, however, points
to potential research directions in the future to explore educator
attitudes towards ethics in the HCI and higher education context.
6.3 Scaolding the resource with structure and
narrative
Feedback during the testing of the Ethics Reexivity Canvas showed
that this type of resource should oer a general structure aligned
with educators ways of working in syllabus and curriculum devel-
opment, while motivating them to engage in a narrative dialogue
with themselves to reect on teaching ethics. In other words, the
resource should provide scaolding for step-by-step exploration
to establish standpoint (e.g. educator and learner positionality),
theoretical foundation of teaching, practical planning that suits the
context and opportunity to review and adapt to changes. Educators
highlighted that structuring the canvas in this fashion would make
it approachable and less intimidating, particularly when dealing
with abstract concepts like ethics, “[it needs to help me frame] how
ethics is dened, how [I] describe it, and how that can be. So this is
[..like] a plan of action, but a narrative could help somebody apply
this” W6E1. One educator conrmed the narrative was grounded
through the structure and sequencing of the questions and the con-
versational style, which aided them “to think [...of it] like a story.
For an example, think back to what you have done before. So what
went right? What went wrong? [...] reection rst and then you
talk about the learner and educator [...] it could be like [..] you have
done this before [...] what do you think [is] the current standing of
your students in terms of that knowledge on ethics?” W9E2. Some
educators felt the resource could be used in a collaborative way
with a colleague to reinforce the dialogue, "the Educator section [of
the canvas] is to surface my own perspective of being an educator.
It would be good as a dialogue [with someone else] to break down
the perspective, as it can be dicult to do the self-interrogation
alone" W9E1.
Some feedback related specically to the chosen form, the can-
vas. Some educators found the non-linear canvas suitable to their
way of thinking, “I was kind of exploring them in a non-linear fash-
ion. And that’s what I like about the tool. I really liked the design
where you can kind of have your eyes jump to dierent sections. I
actually found it, I don’t know, accessible to someone like me who
doesn’t read in a linear way. It’s really much more engaging than it
could have been had it been just a straight text PDF. I would have
probably gotten slightly bored” W8E1. Overall, educators sought
a resource to guide their thinking with components to aid them
build ideas and make connections for their pedagogy, “some of the
questions are [...] a bit oating [...] it’s like: okay, well how [do I]
ask the right questions about quality discussion on students. It’s
suddenly like: oh, I’m thinking about that now, where would that
go in a lesson plan or in the course outline” W9E1. The intrigu-
ing prompts across canvas sections enabled these interrogations.
However, educators noted that an overarching guiding document
would be important to help them learn how to connect the pieces,
“I think the problem is that I sort of forget that I need to connect this
[section] back [to a previous section]” W7E1, and “you explained it
to me [as the workshop facilitator] and then I sort of understood
that I should go from here to here to here, but more explanation
would help” W7E1. Overall, this feedback claried the importance
of on-boarding which may be in the form of introductory text or a
separate document.
7 The Ethics reexivity Canvas walkthrough
The Ethics Reexivity Canvas provides a template for educators to
reect and explore a plan for embedding ethics in HCI education.
The canvas aims to turn a potentially daunting task into an engaging
and dynamic exercise of exploration, by helping educators locate
a lens, acknowledge their own positionality and that of diverse
learner groups, pick a site (a subject, a program) and nd their
own rhythm to make a practical plan that suits their pedagogical
approach. The process acts as a way for educators to discover
and deepen their ethical sensitivities. Because the canvas does
not provide any answer to the educator, it should be used as an
invitation for them to perform their own research on teaching
ethics. As Fig 6 demonstrates, there is not one correct way or linear
process to use the canvas and therefore there are no set instructions.
The prompts on each section of the canvas are, in some ways,
provocations to facilitate thought and questioning around what they
may take for granted in their teaching. The canvas is appropriate
for educators interested in bringing the critical aspects of HCI
education into their teaching. Indeed, an openness to developing
ethical sensitivity is key to adopting and using the canvas. There
remains a potential for the canvas to be used in collaborative ways
to engage diverse groups of educators in dialogue.
To illustrate the use of the Ethics Reexivity Canvas, we present a
ctional vignette showing how Dr Neda Payan (she/her/hers) uses it
to reect on her teaching practice. Neda is an early career researcher
and educator in HCI, and has a foundational understanding of ethics,
but little experience of how to go about weaving it into her teaching.
This persona does not represent any educator who participated in
our study or an average HCI educator (if that is even possible to
do).
After downloading the Canvas, Neda glances over the
large three sections: Recognise, Respond and Adapt. She
sees the word Plan on the right hand side of the Canvas
and gures she is not ready to plan anything yet: she
has some thinking to do rst. So, she moves to the left
side of the canvas, starting with the Learner section. At
dierent times, Neda moves to other sections, jumping in
and out, building out new ideas she would like to include
Ethics Reflexivity Canvas: Resourcing Ethical Sensitivity for HCI Educators CHI ’25, April 26–May 01, 2025, Yokohama, Japan
Figure 6: The nal design of ethics reexivity canvas, with three areas to recognise, respond, and adapt teaching in HCI
in the Plan, or based on what catches her eye. She begins
to make multiple connections by annotating the printed
template (similar to Fig 4). In some ways, she feels the
canvas is helping her with a rapid brainstorming of
ideas for her syllabus. Neda adds notes in Recognise
and reviews her syllabus from last year before making
a plan on new ethics topics for this year’s subject in the
Respond section.
Educators like Neda may already do a lot to bring ethics into their
classroom. The canvas can help them build on their existing foun-
dation by giving them space for further reection. Prompts in each
section spark Neda’s creative thinking, help surface unexpected
ideas or interrogate her own ethics.
Neda is intrigued by the term “Consider your position-
ality” in the Educator section, rather than the Learner
section. She had asked her students to reect on their po-
sitionality when designing technologies, but she realises
that as an educator, she has never done a positionality
statement explicitly for her teaching. Neda feels that her
understanding of positionality is linked to her interest
in feminism, so the rst thing that comes to her mind
is how her various identities surface and impact her
choices in teaching. She is surprised to nd this unex-
pectedly complex. She identies as a person of colour
and recognises that many of her examples in “Designing
Health Technologies” subject often refer to marginalisa-
tion of people of colour in the health system and through
health technology. She remembers a paper she recently
read on critical race theory [
37
] and thinks she might
be able to extend lecture examples and tutorial exercises
in her class to using this theory as an ethical lens. To
do this, she moves to the Plan section to map out the 13
weeks of her semester. For week ve, she adds a note to
share with students a recent article from The Economist
that showed oximeters do not accurately capture blood
oxygen of non-white people with dark skin [
1
]. Neda
then makes a note to follow up this example with a
quick 5-minute quiz in class to get students think about
how they might have considered race in their project.
She ends the plan for that week’s lecture with a review
of critical race theory [37].
As we have noted, there are several tools for ethical design that
have been adapted and applied in the classroom to help students
navigate ethics in HCI. However, there are limited tools to support
the process of bringing ethics education into a learning environ-
ment, even for engaged HCI educators, which was noted at the CHI
workshop on ethics education.
The canvas takes an intersectional approach in all sec-
tions and Neda uses her institution’s platform to get
a sense of her student cohort; she can see the compo-
sition of her cohort based on disclosed identities such
CHI ’25, April 26–May 01, 2025, Yokohama, Japan Ahmadpour et al.
as gender, race, rst-in-family to go to university, and
more. She goes to the learning management platform
and jots down the idea of “many ways of knowing” in
the Learner section, and draws an arrow connecting to
the Sensitise section on the right side of the canvas.
The canvas we present is open-ended and exploratory, but not
blank. Other tools available to educators, including learning man-
agement systems (such as Moodle or Canvas) and institutional
data portals and degree-level curricula may also support the use of
our canvas. Our vision is that the exploration will leverage these
existing resources.
Neda continues her exploration across the canvas in
the Respond section. She thinks about how she can sit-
uate her second year subject in the broader context of
the program, and quickly sends a quick message to her
colleague, who teaches a rst-year subject, to see what
foundational ethical concept and methods are intro-
duced to the students. She then comes up with an idea of
an exercise to sensitise students to the ethical impacts of
technologies on individual, community, society, global
level, based on a recent paper she had read [
42
]. She
creates an exercise template and then remembers she
needs to talk about the industry too. She looks up a few
industry speakers for a panel discussion in week 6. She
then reviews all the annotations and thinks it’s getting
too much! She starts nalising the week-by-week plan.
With a completed syllabus, it’s time to ne tune the
details. Neda remembers some student feedback about
the clarity of the nal assignment, when she taught the
same subject in a previous year. She pulls up the online
record of student feedback and sorts it by question so
she can locate the specic feedback. She takes a note in
the Adapt section of the canvas.
This vignette acknowledges the messiness of education work, as
well as the emotional labour, involved when translating big ideas
into an actionable plan. Importantly, it illustrates that embedding
ethics requires not just supportive structures, but also exibility
to incorporate insights captured from institutional culture and
infrastructure [48].
8 Discussion
8.1 Building a culture of ethics in HCI
education work
Education work is rarely the focus of tool and resource develop-
ment in HCI. By education work, we refer to the labour involved
in undertaking education tasks including planning and prepara-
tion work, before the delivery and performative tasks of education.
When it comes to ethics, this lack of resource for educators can lead
to tensions and challenges for educators, as our ndings revealed.
For critically-minded educators, who are ready to sharpen their
ethical sensitivity (ES) and ground their teaching in ethical inquiry,
a resource such as the Ethics Reexivity Canvas provides a loca-
tion to explore and specify new pedagogical ideas. For educators
who experience tension, and see a dichotomy between HCI as a
technical practice versus a critical one (as our ndings revealed is
the case for some educators), we hope to provide a provocation to
engage them in discussion with peers and community. We do not,
however, assume that the proposed resource will fundamentally
change the way the latter group approaches education work. In
other words, the proposed resource does not in itself generate an
awareness of ethical sensitivity (the rst step in ES framework by
Boyd and Shiltod [
13
]) but rather supports those with such aware-
ness to specify their intention and develop judgement that leads
to design decision (the second and third steps in ES framework). A
cultural shift is needed if we are to see a broader discussion and
action on the raising awareness about ES in HCI education. Other
work has identied that the perceived relevance to computing is
still a barrier for integrating ethics to HCI education [
48
]. We echo
concerns raised by other researchers such as Yeslan [
4
] that com-
puting ethics should not be presented as one standalone subject,
otherwise students may perceive that ethical considerations are not
integral to technical practice. Indeed, our ndings reveal that there
is work to do to dismantle this perception on the educators side.
Based on our ndings, we posit that a supportive environment
can engage educators who are otherwise disinterested in embedding
ethics in their teaching, particularly those in “technical” subjects.
This was evident from comments in Section 5, highlighting educa-
tor’s interest in keeping some subjects practical, rather than what
they perceive to be as theoretical or critical. To us, this contra-
dicted their own comments: that students must learn about the
consequences of design choices, and which values are ultimately
embedded in technology. Contradictions and tensions reveal oppor-
tunities for exploring what a supportive environment might look
like. Previous research on tech work suggests that resources and
community platforms are needed to surface ethical tensions and
mediate conversation around contentious topics such as ethics [
42
],
and also building condence and competence through shared re-
sources and collaboration [
48
]. We hope that the Ethics Reexivity
Canvas can serve as such a resource. Educators in our study re-
vealed that they would like to use the canvas in collaboration with
peers, which furthers the opportunity to establish “a site of care”,
as Pillai et al. [
42
] suggested, to share insights and address tensions.
Anderson et al. [
5
] framed good teaching as care work, positioning
care as an ethical pedagogical stance in higher education. We ex-
tend this view to specically frame ethics education as care work; it
is care for students to train future ethical designers and technology
practitioners, and care for peers with divergent views on ethics to
mediate fruitful conversations and build a culture of collaboration.
8.2 Education work is collaborative work
Collaboration is integral to education work. HCI educators collab-
orate within teams of teaching at subject-level, degree-level and
through faculties. Ethics education is best implemented when it
runs through various components of curriculum, rather than as
a stand alone subject [
4
]. Further to this, Hughes et al. [
29
] state
that we must embrace multiple perspectives in HCI and comput-
ing ethics education to incorporate diverse perspectives. A diverse
ethics curriculum would not only acknowledge global perspectives
and non-western knowledge systems [
29
], but also enable HCI
ethics education to benet from disciplines such as humanities and
social sciences [
4
]. Bardzell and Bardzell [
7
, p.21] showed that HCI
Ethics Reflexivity Canvas: Resourcing Ethical Sensitivity for HCI Educators CHI ’25, April 26–May 01, 2025, Yokohama, Japan
has already been reaching out to dierent academic disciplines
to “cope with the consequences of the computer moving out into
the world” including humanistic theories, inspiring applications of
ethical lenses such as feminist [
8
] and post-colonial theories [
30
] in
HCI. We hope that the Ethics Reexivity Canvas can oer a starting
point for educators to engage in intradisciplinary explorations to
expand their pedagogy.
A multi-perspective view of ethics inherently requires collabora-
tion with various experts and educators. We hope that the Ethics
Reexivity Canvas would contribute to fostering an environment of
ethical enquiry and knowledge co-production to address the chal-
lenge of bridging the theory-practice gap in ethics education [
34
].
We present a canvas because it is open-ended and exible and
avoids eld-specic advice or jargon–it is prepared for exploration
rather than developing a prescriptive method, but neither is it blank.
Educators participating in the study repeatedly stated their desire
to use the canvas in a collaborative context. Additionally, the can-
vas could support record keeping in terms of pedagogical decision
making to help educators assess the long term benets of their
approach. In other words, the Ethics Reexivity Canvas can help
HCI educators create a program of ethics pedagogy embedded with
pluralistic values, which can be exibly and iteratively shaped. We
do not view the canvas a necessary tool for all activities within
such programs, but rather hope it will aid educators to begin the
work towards such programs and shape their thinking around their
position, that of their learners, ways of engaging them and how the
teaching is situated, sensitised, planned and adapted.
9 Limitation and future work
The Ethics Reexivity Canvas centres the concept of ES [
43
] to
explore and design a pedagogical resource for HCI educators. In-
deed, ES was appropriate to use in our project because it aligned
well with educators ways of working to set intentions, specify their
approach and make judgement through planning and implement.
Testing of the proposed canvas revealed exibility is key for ed-
ucators to be able to seamlessly move between dierent steps of
their decision making. Future work could extend our ndings by
capturing in-situ and long term educator feedback on implementing
the canvas to examine how useful the planning through the canvas
was in their teaching practice, and its benets. While our work
focused predominantly on identifying how the canvas should be
developed and what form might be appropriate to address tensions
and challenges in teaching ethics in HCI, there is an opportunity
for future research to conduct a formal evaluation of its eective-
ness in changing teaching practices or student learning outcomes.
Other directions for future work would involve examining how
eectively the canvas can support collaborations and potentially
dicult conversations surrounding the need for ethics in HCI or
approaches to integrate it.
Our research has limitations that need to be acknowledged.
Firstly, we recognise that there is a limitation in the diversity of
the educators involved in our study, as they all work in universities
situated in Western contexts. Additionally, while educators came
from dierent training backgrounds, they were all teaching in in-
teraction design and HCI programs and none were teaching in a CS
program. This might have limited the diversity of insights and per-
spectives. Regardless, our ndings echoed previous work [
48
] that
demonstrated a portion of CS educators did not think ethics was
appropriate for all computing classes. Smith et al. [
48
] suggested
that CS program should consider dedicated space in the curriculum
to deliver specic content on ethics but that all CS educators should
reect on how ethics might be weaved into their teaching. Future
work would benet from engaging educators in CS programs to
explore how the canvas can support such reection. Another lim-
itation pertains to the testing of the canvas. While initial testing
revealed that the canvas is eective in guiding educators, how it
informs broader teaching practices beyond one subject (for example
across a program) is not yet fully established. Further research is
required to evaluate the canvas, including extensive and diverse
testing of its adaptability to various subjects. Student insights can
further establish the impact of the canvas on learner experiences.
10 Conclusion
Ethics is emerging as an important topic in HCI and computing
research. However, there is not a broad agreement across the eld
on how (or indeed if) ethics should be embedded into teaching
subjects or weaved throughout the degree-level curriculum, even
though many industry practitioners and academic researchers have
raised concerns about the need to do so. Because of the diversity
of views and attitudes towards embedding ethics in HCI educa-
tion, previous research has identied the need for co-production
of resources in this space [
42
]. We addressed this need through
a participatory process that conrmed the diverging attitudes of
educator towards ethics and the need for practical resources to plan
for teaching. Feedback collected from educators throughout the
design and testing of the Ethics Reexivity Canvas, revealed a mul-
titude of ways in which educator-focused resources could become
useful. Key qualities emerged as important for any resource for
this purpose, such as open-endedness, striking a balance between
providing exibility and scaolding, being jargon free, conducive to
collaboration, and embracing varied and personalised approaches
to education work. We believe these insights can guide the design
of future educator-focused resources; not just to plan for individual
curriculum planning, but also to collaborate and mediate potential
interpersonal tensions with peers. While ethics as a topic and ethics
education as an applied eld remain ambiguous in HCI, we hope
that our contribution lends a location and language to pursue useful
conversations, provocations and reections in the future.
Acknowledgments
We thank the educators who generously participated in our re-
search. We thank the researchers, educators and industry guests
who participated in our CHI2021 workshop and inspired a unique
direction for our project. Finally, we thank our reviewers for their
thoughtful and constructive feedback.
References
[1]
The Economist. 2021. How Medicine Discriminates against Non-White People
and Women. The Economist April (2021).
[2]
Naseem Ahmadpour and Karen Anne Cochrane. 2017. From information to
reection-design strategies for personal informatics. In 2017 IEEE Life Sciences
Conference (LSC). IEEE, 103–106.
CHI ’25, April 26–May 01, 2025, Yokohama, Japan Ahmadpour et al.
[3]
Naseem Ahmadpour, Ajit G Pillai, Soa Yao, and Andrew Weatherall. 2024. Build-
ing enriching realities with children: creating makerspaces that intertwine virtual
and physical worlds in pediatric hospitals. International Journal of Human-
Computer Studies 183 (2024), 103193.
[4]
Yeslam Al-Saggaf. 2024. The Challenges Facing Computing Ethics Education.
ACM Inroads 15, 2 (may 2024), 26–30. doi:10.1145/3636463
[5]
Vivienne Anderson, Rafaela Rabello, Rob Wass, Clinton Golding, Ana Rangi,
Esmay Eteuati, Zoe Bristowe, and Arianna Waller. 2020. Good teaching as care
in higher education. Higher Education 79 (2020), 1–19.
[6]
James A Banks. 2010. Multicultural education: Characteristics and goals. Multi-
cultural education: Issues and perspectives 7 (2010), 3–32.
[7]
Jerey Bardzell and Shaowen Bardzell. 2016. Humanistic HCI. Interactions 23, 2
(feb 2016), 20–29. doi:10.1145/2888576
[8]
Shaowen Bardzell. 2010. Feminist HCI: taking stock and outlining an agenda for
design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (Atlanta, Georgia, USA) (CHI ’10). Association for Computing Machinery,
New York, NY, USA, 1301–1310. doi:10.1145/1753326.1753521
[9]
Angèle M Beausoleil. 2022. Reective Practice and Design. In Business De-
sign Thinking and Doing: Frameworks, Strategies and Techniques for Sustainable
Innovation. Springer, 117–133.
[10]
Muriel J Bebeau. 2014. An evidence-based guide for ethics instruction. Journal
of Microbiology & Biology Education 15, 2 (2014), 124–129.
[11]
Muriel J Bebeau, James R Rest, and Catherine M Yamoor. 1985. Measuring dental
students’ ethical sensitivity. Journal of Dental Education 49, 4 (1985), 225–235.
[12]
Ulrich Beck and Brian Wynne. 1992. Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Vol. 17.
sage.
[13]
Karen L Boyd and Katie Shilton. 2021. Adapting Ethical Sensitivity as a Construct
to Study Technology Design Teams. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer
Interaction 5, GROUP (2021), 1–29.
[14]
Virginia Braun, Victoria Clarke, et al
.
2022. Thematic analysis: A practical guide.
[15]
Stephen D Brookeld. 2017. Becoming a critically reective teacher. John Wiley
& Sons.
[16]
Noelle Brown, Benjamin Xie, Ella Sarder, Casey Fiesler, and Eliane S. Wiese.
2024. Teaching Ethics in Computing: A Systematic Literature Review of ACM
Computer Science Education Publications. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 24, 1,
Article 6 (jan 2024), 36 pages. doi:10.1145/3634685
[17]
Eunjeong Cheon and Norman Makoto Su. 2018. Futuristic Autobiographies.
In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot
Interaction. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 388–397. doi:10.1145/3171221.3171244
[18]
Victoria Clarke and Virginia Braun. 2017. Thematic analysis. The journal of
positive psychology 12, 3 (2017), 297–298.
[19]
Sasha Costanza-Chock. 2018. Design Justice: Towards an Intersectional Feminist
Framework for Design Theory and Practice. In Design as a Catalyst for Change -
DRS International Conference 2018. Rochester, NY. doi:10.21606/drs.2018.679
[20]
F Esmaelzadeh, A Abbaszadeh, F Borhani, and H Peyrovi. 2017. Ethical Sensitivity
in Nursing Ethical Leadership: A Content Analysis of Iranian Nurses Experiences.
The open nursing journal, 11, 1–13.
[21]
Casey Fiesler, Mikhaila Friske, Natalie Garrett, Felix Muzny, Jessie J. Smith, and
Jason Zietz. 2021. Integrating Ethics into Introductory Programming Classes. In
Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
(Virtual Event, USA) (SIGCSE ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New
York, NY, USA, 1027–1033. doi:10.1145/3408877.3432510
[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 (Portland, OR, USA)
(SIGCSE ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 289–295.
doi:10.1145/3328778.3366825
[23]
Ajit G. Pillai, A. Baki Kocaballi, Tuck Wah Leong, Rafael A. Calvo, Nassim Parvin,
Katie Shilton, Jenny Waycott, Casey Fiesler, John C. Havens, and Naseem Ahmad-
pour. 2021. Co-Designing Resources for Ethics Education in HCI. In Extended
Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
(Yokohama, Japan) (CHI EA ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New
York, NY, USA, Article 109, 5 pages. doi:10.1145/3411763.3441349
[24]
Natalie Garrett, Mikhaila Friske, and Casey Fiesler. 2020. Ethics from the Start:
Exploring Student Attitudes and Creating Interventions in Intro Programming
Classes. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science
Education. 1348–1348.
[25]
Phillip Gough, A. Baki Kocaballi, Khushnood Z. Naqshbandi, Karen Cochrane,
Kristina Mah, Ajit G. Pillai, Yeliz Yorulmaz, Ainnoun Kornita Deny, and Naseem
Ahmadpour. 2022. Co-designing a Technology Probe with Experienced Designers.
In Proceedings of the 33rd Australian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction
(Melbourne, VIC, Australia) (OzCHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery,
New York, NY, USA, 1–13. doi:10.1145/3520495.3520513
[26]
Colin M Gray, Ike Obi, Shruthi Sai Chivukula, Ziqing Li, Thomas V Carlock,
Matthew S Will, Anne C Pivonka, Janna Johns, Brookley Rigsbee, Ambika R
Menon, et al
.
2024. Building an Ethics-Focused Action Plan: Roles, Process
Moves, and Trajectories. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems. 1–17.
[27]
Sandra G. Harding (Ed.). 2001. The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual
and Political Controversies. Routledge, New York.
[28]
Chuck Hu and Almut Furchert. 2014. Toward a pedagogy of ethical practice.
Commun. ACM 57, 7 (jul 2014), 25–27. doi:10.1145/2618103
[29]
Janet Hughes, Ethan Plaut, Feng Wang, Elizabeth von Briesen, Cheryl Brown,
Gerry Cross, Viraj Kumar, and Paul Myers. 2020. Global and Local Agendas
of Computing Ethics Education. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on
Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (Trondheim, Norway)
(ITiCSE ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 239–245.
doi:10.1145/3341525.3387423
[30]
Lilly Irani, Janet Vertesi, Paul Dourish, Kavita Philip, and Rebecca E. Grinter. 2010.
Postcolonial computing: a lens on design and development. In Proceedings of the
SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Atlanta, Georgia,
USA) (CHI ’10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,
1311–1320. doi:10.1145/1753326.1753522
[31]
Jade Jiang and Naseem Ahmadpour. 2024. POVR: Designing an Immersive
Experience for Generating Moments of Self-reection at Home. In Proceedings of
the 35th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference (Wellington, New
Zealand) (OzCHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,
324–339. doi:10.1145/3638380.3638382
[32]
Cory Knobel and Georey C Bowker. 2011. Values in design. Commun. ACM 54,
7 (2011), 26–28.
[33]
Ylva Lindberg and Teresa Ceratto Pargman. 2021. The unbearable lightness of
imagination: Speculative futures in education. In SPT 2021-Technological Imag-
inaries, The Society for Philosophy and Technology Conference, June 28-30 2021,
Université Catholique de Lille, France. 234–235.
[34]
Diane Linke and Claudia Müller-Birn. 2024. Identifying Characteristics of Re-
ection Triggers in Data Science Ethics Education. In Proceedings of Mensch
Und Computer 2024 (Karlsruhe, Germany) (MuC ’24). Association for Computing
Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 466–473. doi:10.1145/3670653.3677486
[35]
Dan Lockton. 2017. Design, behaviour change and the Design with Intent toolkit.
In Design for Behaviour Change. Routledge, 58–73.
[36]
James H Moor. 1985. What is computer ethics? Metaphilosophy 16, 4 (1985),
266–275.
[37]
Ihudiya Finda Ogbonnaya-Ogburu, Angela DR Smith, Alexandra To, and Kentaro
Toyama. 2020. Critical race theory for HCI. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI
conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–16.
[38]
Dorian Peters and Naseem Ahmadpour. 2020. Digital wellbeing through design:
Evaluation of a professional development workshop on wellbeing-supportive
design. In Proceedings of the 32nd Australian Conference on Human-Computer
Interaction. 148–157.
[39]
Dorian Peters, Naseem Ahmadpour, and Rafael A Calvo. 2020. Tools for wellbeing-
supportive design: Features, characteristics, and prototypes. Multimodal Tech-
nologies and Interaction 4, 3 (2020), 40.
[40]
Dorian Peters, Lian Loke, and Naseem Ahmadpour. 2021. Toolkits, cards and
games–a review of analogue tools for collaborative ideation. CoDesign 17, 4
(2021), 410–434.
[41]
Dorian Peters, Malak Sadek, and Naseem Ahmadpour. 2023. Collaborative Work-
shops at Scale: A Method for Non-Facilitated Virtual Collaborative Design Work-
shops. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction (2023), 1–18.
[42]
Ajit G. Pillai, Thida Sachathep, and Naseem Ahmadpour. 2022. Exploring the
experience of ethical tensions and the role of community in UX practice. In
Nordic Human-Computer Interaction Conference (Aarhus, Denmark) (NordiCHI
’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 60,
13 pages. doi:10.1145/3546155.3546683
[43]
James R Rest. 1982. A psychologist looks at the teaching of ethics. Hastings
Center Report (1982), 29–36.
[44]
Jerey Saltz, Michael Skirpan, Casey Fiesler, Micha Gorelick, Tom Yeh, Robert
Heckman, Neil Dewar, and Nathan Beard.2019. Integrating Ethics within Machine
Learning Courses. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 19, 4, Article 32 (aug 2019), 26 pages.
doi:10.1145/3341164
[45]
Lauren Schudde. 2018. Heterogeneous eects in education: The promise and
challenge of incorporating intersectionality into quantitative methodological
approaches. Review of Research in Education 42, 1 (2018), 72–92.
[46]
Katie Shilton, Megan Finn, and Quinn DuPont. 2021. Shaping ethical computing
cultures. Commun. ACM 64, 11 (oct 2021), 26–29. doi:10.1145/3486639
[47]
Michael Skirpan, Jacqueline Cameron, and Tom Yeh. 2018. Quantied Self:
An Interdisciplinary Immersive Theater Project Supporting a Collaborative
Learning Environment for CS Ethics. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Tech-
nical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Baltimore, Maryland, USA)
(SIGCSE ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 946–951.
doi:10.1145/3159450.3159574
[48]
Jessie J. Smith, Blakeley H. Payne, Shamika Klassen, Dylan Thomas Doyle, and
Casey Fiesler. 2023. Incorporating Ethics in Computing Courses: Barriers, Sup-
port, and Perspectives from Educators. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical
Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 (Toronto ON, Canada) (SIGCSE
2023). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 367–373.
doi:10.1145/3545945.3569855
Ethics Reflexivity Canvas: Resourcing Ethical Sensitivity for HCI Educators CHI ’25, April 26–May 01, 2025, Yokohama, Japan
[49]
The Artefact Group. 2023. The Tarot Cards Of Tech. https://tarotcardsoftech.
artefactgroup.com/
[50]
M Tomitsch, M Borthwick, N Ahmadpour, C Cooper, J Frawley, LA Hepburn, AB
Kocaballi, L Loke, C Núñez-Pacheco, K Straker, et al
.
2021. Design. Think. Make.
Break. Repeat.: Revised edition. (2021).
[51]
Jayce R Warner, Joshua Childs, Carol L Fletcher, Nicole D Martin, and Michelle
Kennedy. 2021. Quantifying disparities in computing education: Access, partici-
pation, and intersectionality. In Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium
on Computer Science Education. 619–625.
[52]
Richmond Y. Wong, Karen Boyd, Jake Metcalf, and Katie Shilton. 2020. Beyond
Checklist Approaches to Ethics in Design. In Companion Publication of the 2020
Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (Vir-
tual Event, USA) (CSCW ’20 Companion). Association for Computing Machinery,
New York, NY, USA, 511–517. doi:10.1145/3406865.3418590
[53]
Li Zhang, Meng Zhang, and Haorui Tian. 2024. Biological Interaction and
Bioethics of ‘Death to Living’. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Sym-
posium of Chinese CHI (Chinese CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery,
New York, NY, USA, 242–248. doi:10.1145/3565698.3565792
[54]
Zhongya Zhang, Tilde Bekker, Panos Markopoulos, and Helle Marie Skovbjerg.
2024. Supporting and understanding students’ collaborative reection-in-action
during design-based learning. International Journal of Technology and Design
Education 34, 1 (2024), 307–343.
