Ethics of Educational Technology

  • Stephanie L. MooreEmail author
  • James B. Ellsworth


While ethics has been an under-researched area in educational technology, it is receiving current recognition as a critical focus for inquiry and development. In this chapter, we review the contribution of ethics as part of the history of professionalization of the field, the development of a code of ethics for the profession, and contemporary ethics issues like cultural competence, intellectual property, accessibility and universal design, critical theory in educational technology, system ethics, and social responsibility of professionals. In addition, this chapter presents major theoretical and philosophical models for ethics that pertain specifically to technology in educational systems along with implications of research from other fields exploring the integration of ethics into policy, standards, and higher education curricula. Existing research on ethics in educational technology programs suggests a very low level of integration in such domains at present; findings from a survey of the curricular landscape and implications for future research and development are discussed along with consideration of ethics as a foundational component not only to professional standards, practices, and leadership, but also to education policy, as we highlight the role of faculty and graduate programs, practicing professionals, and scholarly associations in shaping future directions and research in this emerging domain.


Professional ethics Ethics as design Ethics across the curriculum Social responsibility Conative domain 



We would like to thank Heather Tillberg-Webb, Lesley University, for conversations about access and the history of evolution around this construct that contributed to the section on access.


  1. Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). (2009). Criteria for accrediting applied science programs. Retrieved online May 11, 2011, from
  2. Alrich, A. (2008). Framing the cultural training landscape: Phase I findings. Alexandria, VA: Institute for Defense Analyses. Retrieved online March 4, 2012, from
  3. Anderson, R. (1977). The notion of schemata and the educational ­enterprise: General discussion of the conference. In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 415–431). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  4. Andrews, C. J. (2006, Spring). Practicing technological citizenship. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 45.Google Scholar
  5. *Barbour, I. (1993). Ethics in an age of technology: The Gifford Lectures (Vol. 2). San Francisco, CA: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  6. Besterfield-Sacre, M., Shuman, L., Wolfe, H., Atman, C. J., McGourty, J., Miller, R., et al. (2000). Defining the Outcomes: A framework for EC 2000. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Education, 43(2), 100–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carlson, W. B. (2005). Technology in world history (Vol. 1–7). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cuban, L. (2003). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom, 1980–2000. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Davies, I. (1978). Educational technology: Archetypes, paradigms and models. In J. Hartley & I. Davies (Eds.), Contributions to educational technology (Vol. 2, pp. 9–29). London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  11. Davies, I. (1996). Educational technology: Archetypes, paradigms and models. In D. Ely & T. Plomp (Eds.), Classic writings on instructional technology (pp. 15–30). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
  12. *Davis, M. (1999). Ethics and the university. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Dean, P. J. (1993). A selected review of the underpinnings of ethics for human performance technology professionals—Part one: Key ethical theories and research. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dean, P. J. (1999). The relevance of standards and ethics for the human performance technology profession. In H. Stolovitch & E. Keeps (Eds.), Handbook of human performance technology (2nd ed., pp. 698–712). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  15. Downey, G., Lucena, J., Moskal, B., Parkhurst, R., Bigley, T., Hays, C., et al. (2006). The globally competent engineer: Working effectively with people who define problems differently. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 107–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ely, D., & Plomp, T. (1996). Classic writings on instructional technology. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
  17. Endicott, L., Bock, T., & Narvaez, D. (2003). Moral reasoning, intercultural development, and multicultural experiences: Relations and cognitive underpinnings. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 403–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ferguson, K. (2012). Everything is a remix, Part 4. Retrieved February 25, 2012, from
  19. Finn, J. D. (1953). Professionalizing the audio-visual field. Audio-visual Communication Review, 1(1), 6–18.Google Scholar
  20. Finn, J. D. (1962). A walk on the altered side. Phi Delta Kappan, 44(1), 29–34.Google Scholar
  21. Finn, J. D. (1996a). A walk on the altered side. In D. Ely & T. Plomp (Eds.), Classic writings on instructional technology (pp. 47–56). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
  22. Finn, J. D. (1996b). Professionalizing the audio-visual field. In D. Ely & T. Plomp (Eds.), Classic writings on instructional technology (pp. 231–241). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
  23. Fletcher, V. (2002). Universal design, human-centered design for the 21st Century. Accessed April 3, 2013.
  24. Guerra, I. (2001). A study to identify key competencies for performance improvement professionals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University.Google Scholar
  25. Guerra, I., & Rodriguez, G. (2005). Educational planning and social responsibility: Eleven years of mega planning at the Sonora Institute of Technology (ITSON). Performance Improvement Quarterly, 18(3), 56–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). The intercultural development inventory: A measure of intercultural sensitivity. In M. Paige (Guest Ed.), International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 421–443.Google Scholar
  27. Harrington, S. J. (1991). What corporate America is teaching about ethics. The Executive, 5, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Healy, J. (1990). Endangered minds: Why our children don’t think. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  29. Healy, J. (1999). Failure to connect: How computers affect our children’s minds—And what we can do about it. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  30. Hitchens, H. (1970). Six characteristics in search of a profession: Two. Audiovisual Instruction, 15(4), 120.Google Scholar
  31. INEE Working Group on Education and Fragility. (2011). Understanding education’s role in fragility: Synthesis of four situational analyses of education and fragility: Afghanistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, and Liberia. Paris, France: International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP).Google Scholar
  32. Jesiek, B., Borrego, M., & Beddoes, K. (2010). Advancing global capacity for engineering education research: relating research to practice, policy and industry. European Journal of Engineering Education, 35(2), 117–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kaufman, R. (1977). Needs assessment: Internal and external. Journal of Instructional Development, 1, 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kaufman, R. (1996). Needs assessment: Internal and external. In D. Ely & T. Plomp (Eds.), Classic writings on instructional technology (pp. 111–118). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
  35. *Kaufman, R. (2000). Mega planning: Practical tools for organizational success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  36. Kaufman, R. (2006). Change, choices, and consequences: A guide to mega thinking and planning. Amherst, MA: HRD Press.Google Scholar
  37. Kaufman, R., Corrigan, R., & Johnson, D. (1969). Towards educational responsiveness to society’s needs: A tentative utility model. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 3, 151–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  39. Kolbe, K. (1990). The conative connection: Acting on instinct. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  40. Kuzma, J., & Tanji, T. (2010). Unpackaging synthetic biology: Identification of oversight policy problems and options. Regulation & Governance, 4, 92–112.Google Scholar
  41. Leslie, K. C., Low, R., Jin, P., & Sweller, J. (2012). Redundancy and expertise reversal effects when using educational technology to learn primary school science. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lin, H. (2007). The ethics of instructional technology: Issues and coping strategies experienced by professional technologists in design and training situations in higher education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(5), 411–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mace, R. L., Hardie, G. J., & Plaice, J. P. (1991). Accessible environments: Toward universal design. In W. F. E. Preiser, J. C. Vischer, & E. T. White (Eds.), Design intervention: Toward a more humane architecture (pp. 155–176). New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  44. McDougall, W. (1923). An outline of psychology. London: Methuen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McCarty, C., Lupton, E., McQuaid, M., & Smith, C. (2010). Why design now? National Design Triennial. New York, NY: Cooper-Hewitt, National Design Museum, Smithsonian Institution.Google Scholar
  46. Moore, S. L. (2005). The social impact of a profession: An analysis of factors influencing ethics and the teaching of social responsibility in educational technology programs. Doctor of Philosophy dissertation, University of Northern Colorado.Google Scholar
  47. Moore, S. L. (2007). Universal design for learning: Presuming competence by design. A tutorial for systems, environment, curricular and materials design in learning systems. Retrieved March 20, 2012, from
  48. *Moore, S. L. (2009). Social responsibility of a profession: An analysis of faculty perception of social responsibility factors and integration into graduate programs of educational technology. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 22(2), 79–96.Google Scholar
  49. *Moore, S. L. (2010). Ethics by design: Strategic thinking and planning for exemplary performance, responsible results, and societal accountability. Amherst, MA: HRD Press.Google Scholar
  50. Moore, S. L. (in press). Design that matters: Ethics of technology in education (temporary title). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  51. Moore, S. L., Ellsworth, J., & Kaufman, R. (2008). Objectives: Are they useful? A quick assessment. Performance Improvement, 47(7), 41–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Moore, S. L., Ellsworth, J., & Kaufman, R. (2011). Visions and missions: Are they useful? A quick assessment. Performance Improvement, 50(6), 15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Moore, S., May, D., & Wold, K. (2012). Developing cultural competency in engineering through transnational distance learning. In R. Hogan (Ed.), Transnational distance learning and building new markets for universities (pp. 210–228). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. National Education Association. (1975). Code of ethics of the education profession. Retrieved June 19, 2012, from
  55. Neeley, K. (2010). Toward an integrated view of technology. In K. A. Neeley (Ed.), Technology & democracy: A socio-technical systems analysis (pp. 37–45). San Diego, CA: Cognella.Google Scholar
  56. Ormrod, J. E. (1999). Human learning (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  57. Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1984). The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or, how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science, 14, 399–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Quintilian. (2006). Institutes of oratory. In L. Honeycutt (Ed.), (J. S. Watson, Trans.). Retrieved March 3, 2012, from (Original work published 1856).
  59. *Reeves, T. (2006). How do you know they are learning?: The importance of alignment in higher education. International Journal of Learning Technology, 2(4), 294–309.Google Scholar
  60. Reeves, T. C. (2011). Can educational research be both rigorous and relevant? Educational Designer, 1(4), 1–24.Google Scholar
  61. Roberts, S. (2003). Instructional design and accessibility: Cognitive curb cuts. Retrieved March 3, 2012, from
  62. Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  63. Scharff, R., & Dusek, V. (Eds.). (2003). Philosophy of technology: The technological condition, an anthology. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  64. Seels, B., & Richey, R. (1994). Instructional technology: The definition and domains of the field. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.Google Scholar
  65. Slatin, J. M., & Rush, S. (2003). Maximum accessibility: Making your website more usable for everyone. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  66. Sparrow, R., & Sparrow, L. (2006). In the hands of machines? The future of aged care. Minds and Machines, 16, 141–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stolovitch, H., Keeps, E., & Rodrigue, D. (1999). Skill sets, characteristics, and values for the human performance technologist. In H. Stolovitch & E. Keeps (Eds.), Handbook of human performance ­technology (2nd ed., pp. 651–697). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  68. Strijbos, S. (1998). Ethics and the systemic character of modern ­technology. Techne: Journal for the Society for Philosophy and Technology, 3(4), 1–15.Google Scholar
  69. Trevino, L. (1987). The influences of vicarious learning and individual differences on ethical decision making in the organization: An experiment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University.Google Scholar
  70. Trevino, L. (1992). Moral reasoning and business ethics: Implications for research, education, and management. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 445–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  72. *Watkins, R., Leigh, D., & Kaufman, R. (2000). A scientific dialogue: A performance accomplishment code of professional conduct. Performance Improvement, 39(4), 17–22.Google Scholar
  73. Weaver, G. R. (1999). Compliance and values oriented ethics programs: Influences on employee’s attitudes and behavior. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9, 315–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Welliver, P. (Ed.). (2001). A code of professional ethics: A guide to ­professional conduct in the field of educational communications and technology. Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational Communications & Technology.Google Scholar
  75. WestEd. (2002). Investing in technology: The learning return. Retrieved March 3, 2012, from
  76. *Whitbeck, C. (1996). Ethics as design: Doing justice to moral ­problems. The Hastings Center Report, 26(3), 9–16.Google Scholar
  77. Wiley, D. (2010). The open future: Openness as catalyst for an educational reformation. EDUCAUSE Review, 45(4), 14–20.Google Scholar
  78. Yeaman, A. (2004). Professional ethics for technology. TechTrends, 48(2), 11–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. *Yeaman, A. R. J., Eastmond, J. N., & Napper, V. S. (2008). Professional ethics and educational technology. In A. Januszewski & M. Molenda (Eds.), Educational technology: A definition with commentary (pp. 283–326). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  80. Yeaman, A., Koetting, R., & Nichols, R. (1994). Critical theory, cultural analysis, and the ethics of educational technology as social responsibility. Educational Technology, 34(2), 5–13.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of VirginiaCharlottesvilleUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Naval War CollegeNewportUSA

Personalised recommendations