Jl. of Technology and Teacher Education (2007) 15(3), 409-424
Digital Dilemmas: How Elementary Preservice Teachers
Reason about Students’ Appropriate Computer and
Internet Use
YASMIN B. KAFAI, ALTHEA SCOTT NIXON, AND BRUCE BURNAM
University of California, Los Angeles
Los Angeles, CA USA
kafai@gseis.ucla.edu
nixon@ucla.edu
bburnam@comcast.net
With increased computer technology use in schools, preservice teachers must be prepared to deal with ethical issues involved in a range of computer uses, such as students plagiarizing from the Internet or accessing adults-only web sites.
We investigated preservice teachers’ judgments regarding
several scenarios of student uses of the computer and Internet. Results show that most of the preservice teachers believed that appropriate uses of the computer and Internet involve specific classroom and school rules rather than universal considerations. We also asked the preservice teachers to
predict elementary school students’ responses to the same
scenarios. Preservice teachers were at times able to predict
students’ judgments for whether the behavior was appropriate; however, they were unable to explain why students
made those judgments. Our findings provide valuable information for teacher education programs on how preservice
teachers can be better prepared for classroom incidents and,
in turn, can help students understand the issues involved in
various uses of the computer and Internet.
While the successful integration of computers into classroom instructional practices continues to be an important topic of educational research
and policy (Cuban, 2001), educators face additional concerns involving
410
Kafai, Nixon, and Burnam
appropriate uses of computer technologies, such as students plagiarizing
from the Internet, spreading rumors in chat rooms, and accessing pornographic web sites at computers in schools. As a result, school administrators
across the nation have begun developing curriculum materials on computer
ethics and implementing acceptable use policies to regulate computer and
Internet use (Dill & Anderson, 2003). These local policies, however, continually change amidst national debates on whether laws, including the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act and the Copyright Term Extension Act, make
“the United States less free and ultimately less creative” (Boynton, 2004, p.
42). These laws are also ambiguous, forcing people to interpret them in multiple ways and decide on their own what uses of the computer and Internet
are appropriate (Davis, Samuelson, Kapor, & Reichman, 1996).
Teachers confront such issues on a daily basis in their classrooms.
While trying to implement computers in their classroom curriculum, they
must deal with highly debated, continually changing, and oftentimes difficult
to understand policies regulating student computer and Internet use. Teachers need not only to understand these policies but also to have an awareness
of students’ beliefs, so that they can offer students more than a set of policy
regulations to follow: “Ethical issues are complex [and] a list of rules is not
adequate to help enhance a student’s understanding” (Carpenter, 1996, p.
60). Increasing understanding is of particular importance for teacher education programs where education in computer ethics is now part of most teacher-credentialing requirements (International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE], 2002). More than 90% of states have adopted or incorporated
technology standards that include computer ethics. Yet despite these requirements, we know virtually nothing about preservice teachers’ judgments
and justifications about dilemmas in the digital domain or their understanding of students’ judgments and justifications.
As preservice teachers prepare to deal with the application of acceptable use policies in their daily classroom life, their pedagogical decisions
need to be informed by students’ beliefs, which may not be the same as
theirs. If preservice teachers understand students’ judgments and justifications, they can help students develop a better understanding of the issues regarding appropriate uses of information and content from digital sources
such as the Internet. We argue that such understanding has the potential to
create more responsible participation and to impact student use beyond the
traditional short-term behavioral adjustments. Using student beliefs to inform pedagogical practice is common in other school disciplines (e.g.,
Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000), yet little research on what teachers
know about student judgments and justifications about appropriate uses to
Digital Dilemmas: How Elementary Preservice Teachers Reason
411
inform their classroom computer practices has been done, providing the impetus for the study described in this article.
This article reports findings from a study of preservice teachers’ judgments and justifications about digital dilemmas. We presented 66 elementary school preservice teachers with four scenarios that addressed student
copyright use and web browsing and computer use in school settings. We
asked these preservice teachers to judge whether the behaviors described in
the scenarios were appropriate (their judgments), and to explain why (their
justifications). We also asked these teachers to make predictions of how students would respond to the very same scenarios. We compared these predictions with a dataset of actual responses from 215 elementary school students. Our findings provide valuable information for teacher education programs on how preservice teachers can be better prepared for classroom incidents and, in turn, can help students understand the issues involved in various uses of the computer and Internet.
RESEARCH REVIEW
Although a long established tradition in cognitive developmental research focuses on children’s and adults’ moral reasoning in everyday situations (Piaget, 1965; Kohlberg, 1981; Damon, 1980; Turiel, 1983, 2002;
Nucci, 1996), only a few studies focus specifically on preservice teachers’
judgments and none in the context of computer and Internet use. Previous
studies (Cummings, Dyas, Maddux, & Kochman, 2001; McNeel, 1994;
Yeazell & Johnson, 1988) focus on ranking preservice teachers’ levels of
moral development by using Rest’s (1979) Defining Issues Test. Our goal,
however, is not to judge preservice teachers’ levels of reasoning. Instead, we
report how they judge student uses of the computer and Internet and why.
When considering the judgments teachers make in educational settings, we
need to consider the context in which teachers make professional judgments
(Tirri, 1999). Preservice teachers’ judgments about appropriate uses of the
computer and Internet may be based not only on universal values but also on
school rules, societal laws, and personal beliefs. We argue that gaining a
better understanding of why preservice teachers make different judgments
will help inform teacher education and classroom practice.
For that reason, we chose Turiel’s (1983, 2002) framework of moral
reasoning, which includes different domains of social knowledge: (a) moral,
(b) social conventional, and (c) personal. His moral domain category represents the justice-oriented perspective of universal beliefs on what is right
412
Kafai, Nixon, and Burnam
and wrong, but he adds the social conventional domain, which represents socially constructed rules and laws that are governed by figures of authority.
Personal beliefs are about matters of taste, personal rights, and personal jurisdiction. Willard (1996) argue/d that Turiel’s domains of social knowledge
are useful when discussing appropriate uses of the computer and Internet because of the intangible nature of the Internet. That is, such decisions may not
always involve justice-based dilemmas, such as whether another person is
harmed. Instead, these issues may focus on evolving societal rules governing
different uses:
Actions taken in cyberspace are distanced from the resulting harm,
which may impair a person’s ability to discern an underlying moral
value. Our transition into the information age is resulting in changing
social conventions. Many issues related to the use of information
technologies appear to be multifaceted issues. All of these concepts
appear to be related to the difficult situation of discerning underlying
moral values when social conventions are changing and it is difficult
to perceive the resulting harm of actions taken. (p. 6)
Therefore, it is important to investigate justifications in the context of
computer and Internet use from a perspective that recognizes not only moral
values but also social conventions and personal beliefs.
A recent study used Turiel’s (1983, 2002) framework to investigate
children’s judgments and justifications regarding appropriate uses of the
computer and Internet (Burnam, 2004). Burnam surveyed 466 students in
fifth and eighth grade to understand how they judged the appropriateness of
various uses of the computer and Internet as described in hypothetical scenarios. Findings from this study indicate that justifications for what is appropriate or not are oftentimes based on social conventions for how to use the
computer and Internet in different contexts. These results are similar to
Bear’s (1990) and Burnam and Kafai’s (2001) findings on children’s judgments about computer and Internet use, showing that context matters, and
not all children reason about computer technology use in the same way.
The research remains unclear as to whether adults and in particular,
whether teachers share similar patterns of judgments and justifications with
children about the appropriateness of these different uses of the computer
and Internet. Only recently have researchers begun to study how adults define what constitutes appropriate uses of the computer and Internet. Most of
these studies involved adult computer users in the workplace (Peterson,
2002) or higher education students (Szabo & Underwood, 2004; Kreie &
Cronan, 1998, 2000). There is a lack of research that investigates teachers’
Digital Dilemmas: How Elementary Preservice Teachers Reason
413
judgments. Yet based on workshop observations, some researchers have argued, “although microcomputers have been used for educational purposes
for more than a decade, many teachers still do not understand a number of
longstanding ethical and legal issues related to use of the information technology” (Resta, 1994, p. 271). Resta provided a list of commonly held beliefs among these teachers, such as “it is acceptable to share copies of documents developed by others on the [Internet…and] if a software program is
not copy-protected, the author or publisher really does not care if it is copied” (pp. 270-271). Carpenter (1996) hypothesizes that teachers may justify
copying software programs or using the computer and Internet in other illegal ways as necessary due to the limited funds and resources they have for
their students. Indeed, half of the preservice teachers surveyed in one study
(Swain & Gilmore, 2001) believed that it was acceptable to copy a singleuser software program on all of the computers in a school because it would
be for an educational purpose and not for profit.
Despite discussions about teachers’ judgments of the appropriateness of
computer and Internet use, empirical research in this area is lacking. There
is also a lack of research on preservice teachers’ understanding of students’
beliefs in this context. Yet, because preservice teachers are preparing to deal
with policy regulations governing appropriate school uses of the computer
and Internet, it is important to understand their judgments and justifications.
Our study is an empirical investigation and asks the following two research questions: How do preservice teachers judge appropriate uses of the
computer and Internet? What do preservice teachers know about students’
beliefs in regard to these uses? We used scenarios and data from fifth-grade
students in Burnam’s study (2004) to compare preservice teachers predictions with students’ actual judgments and justifications. We selected two
types of scenarios, academic and nonacademic, to provide different contexts
for student computer and Internet use. To reflect how issues involving various uses of the computer and Internet may cover moral, social conventional,
and personal rules, we used Turiel’s (1983, 2002) framework in our description of preservice teachers’ and students’ judgments.
METHOD
Participants
Sixty-six preservice teachers (57 women and 9 men) in a teacher education program in California volunteered to participate in the study. The
414
Kafai, Nixon, and Burnam
preservice teachers were completing their student teaching requirements in
elementary school classrooms in an urban school district in California. The
racial and ethnic make-up of all students in the teacher education program is
32% Asian, 28% Latino, 28% European American, 5% African American,
and 7% other/decline to state. According to a media survey, all of the preservice teachers owned computers and 98% of them had Internet access on
their computers. Most of them had more than four years of computer experience (94%) and Internet experience (80%). On average, the preservice
teachers spent most of their time on the computer doing school-related work,
using e-mail, and web browsing. These statistics indicate that the preservice
teachers had experience with the computer and Internet technologies that
were described in the scenarios of computer use they judged.
The 215 upper elementary school students, who came from the same
large, urban school district where the preservice teachers were completing
their student teaching, participated in Burnam’s (2004) study, which provided data for our analysis of preservice teachers’ predictions of students’ judgments. These elementary school children came from fifth grade classrooms
at three different elementary schools in the district. The ethnic and racial
make-up of all students in the district was 79% Latino, 7% Asian, 5% African American, 5% European American, and 4% other. There were equal
numbers of boys and girls. Students in all three elementary schools had access to computers. Twenty-seven percent (27%) of the students had over
three years of computer experience, 57% had between one to three years of
computer experience, and 16% had less than one year of computer experience.
Materials
Media survey. The media survey is a shortened version of the media
survey used in Burnam’s (2004) study and in the Kaiser Family Foundation
study, Kids and Media at the New Millennium (Roberts, Foehr, Rideout, &
Brodie, 1999). It included six multiple-choice questions about the number of
years of computer and Internet experience the participants had, the length of
time they spent using the computer for different activities on an average day,
and their computer ownership and Internet access at home. We used these
questions to get a description of the participants’ familiarity with and access
to computers and the Internet.
Scenarios. A set of four vignettes illustrates scenarios of ethical dilemmas children face when using the computer and Internet. The scenarios are
taken from Burnam’s (2004) study and are based on observations of critical
Digital Dilemmas: How Elementary Preservice Teachers Reason
415
incidents that may occur in the classroom when students use computers for
design projects (Kafai & Harel, 1991). Based on Burnam’s study, we expected that there would be a difference between preservice teachers’ judgments about academic uses and their judgments of nonacademic uses of the
computer because students judged the appropriateness of computer behaviors based on these criteria. Therefore, we included both of these uses in the
four scenarios to investigate whether preservice teachers’ judgments about
these computer and Internet uses also differed by academic versus nonacademic uses.
The first two scenarios dealt with variations of copyright infringements
in academic uses of the computer and Internet. In scenario 1, “Susan is having trouble with poetry in her English literature class. The teacher has asked
each student to write a poem and bring it to read in class. Susan had some
extra time, so she got on a computer in the school library and found a terrific
poetry site on the Internet. Susan then copied a poem that she knew was
from a modern poet who was not well known, and used the poem for her
class.” In scenario 2, “The students are using the Internet at school to find
information and resources for their paper, which is due in class on Friday.
Michael finds a great web site, and copies several portions of the text from
the Internet into his paper, so that he can complete his paper. Michael writes
the introduction and conclusion in his own words.”
The second set of scenarios described nonacademic computer and Internet uses. In scenario 3, “Rebecca’s class has been told to only use those Internet web sites allowed specifically by the teacher. The computer is for educational purposes only according to the teacher, and students can only look
at sites approved by the teacher. The teacher, Mr. Shaw, is gone for the day.
Having much extra time, Rebecca gets on the computer and browses some
fun and entertaining movie, games, and music sites with her friends.” In scenario 4, “Mr. Jones lets his students use Print Shop in class, but only for
class assignments. Joe does not have a computer at home, but wants to do
something nice for his friend, Chris, who is having a birthday. Joe has some
extra time at school, and is able to work on the school computer to make a
birthday card for Chris on the computer. He also prints out a flyer that tells
about the birthday party he is planning for Chris, which he then gives to
their friends as an invitation.”
Four questions followed each scenario in the set of story vignettes. The
first two questions asked the participants to judge the behavior in the scenarios as being appropriate or inappropriate (their judgments) and to give the
reasons for their opinion (their justifications). For scenario 4, the first question was “Is what Joe did on the school computer okay or not okay? Please
416
Kafai, Nixon, and Burnam
check one answer: okay or not okay” and then the second question was
“Please explain whether or not you think it is okay or not okay for Joe to do
this on the computer.” The last two questions asked the participants to predict how the majority of fifth grade students would respond to the scenarios
and why (predictions of students’ judgments and justifications). The third
question read, “Fifth graders responded to the same scenario. How do you
think they answered? I think the majority of the fifth graders answered the
following: Please check one answer: okay or not okay.” The final question
was “What do you think the fifth graders’ explanation was?”
Procedure
The materials and procedures were first piloted with 35 preservice
teachers, who were also part of the same teacher education program, in order to test whether the instructions and scenarios were clear and understandable. After the pilot study ended, 66 preservice teachers independently completed the media survey and read and responded to the set of story vignettes
during an hour block of class time for a course in which they were enrolled
for the teacher education program.
Data Analysis and Scoring
Two independent raters coded the reasons given by the participants for
why they believed the behavior in the scenarios was appropriate or inappropriate and for why they believed students would think the actions described
in the scenarios was appropriate or inappropriate. The reasons were coded
into one of Turiel’s (1983, 2002) three domains of social knowledge: moral,
social conventional, and personal. Data from Burnam (2004) on students’
responses to the same scenarios were used to compare teachers’ predictions
of students’ responses to students’ actual responses. The inter-rater agreement in both studies was between 80% and 89%; in cases where there were
differences, the raters met and discussed their codings and recoded the cases
together.
RESULTS
We first present the results of preservice teachers’ judgments and justifications. We then describe the teachers’ predictions of students’ responses
Digital Dilemmas: How Elementary Preservice Teachers Reason
417
to the same scenarios and how these predictions compare to students’ actual
judgments and justifications. The appendix contains the tables with all the
results.
Preservice Teachers’ Judgments and Justifications
The majority of the preservice teachers reported that it was inappropriate for students to use the computer to copy parts of text (95%) or entire text
(94%) from the Internet to complete a school assignment or to browse the
Internet for fun sites without permission from the teacher (72%). On the other hand, a large number of teachers (62%) believed it was appropriate for
students to use the computer software to make a card for a friend, even when
the teacher did not give permission. In response to all four scenarios, the
majority of the preservice teachers had justifications in the social conventional domain (Table 1).
Table 1
Elementary School Preservice Teacher Judgments and Justifications
Academic
Computer Use
Copy Entire
Text
Judgments
Okay
Not Okay
Justifications
Moral
Soc. Conv.
Personal
Nonacademic
Computer Use
Copy Parts
Text
Browse
Internet
Use Computer
Software
6%
94%
5%
95%
28%
72%
62%
38%
9%
88%
3%
9%
89%
2%
8%
79%
13%
14%
77%
9%
Many of the social conventional reasons corresponded to judgments
that the behaviors were inappropriate. For example, preservice teachers
wrote that it was inappropriate for students to copy from the Internet because there are copyright laws against plagiarism. It is inappropriate for students to browse the Internet because the teacher did not give permission, and
it is inappropriate for students to make a card in class for a friend because
the teacher said it is against the classroom rules to use the computers for
nonacademic purposes. There were also reasons in the social conventional
domain corresponding to judgments that the behaviors were appropriate. For
example, preservice teachers wrote that it was appropriate to make a card
418
Kafai, Nixon, and Burnam
for a friend because there should be rules allowing students access to classroom computers for nonacademic purposes, and students should not get in
trouble from the teacher if they make a card for a friend in school.
Preservice Teachers’ Predictions of Students’ Judgments and Justifications
Predictions of student judgments. The preservice teachers made accurate predictions of students’ judgments for copying parts of text from the Internet and using the computer for nonacademic purposes, but the majority of
the preservice teachers were not able to predict accurately how students
would judge copying entire text from the Internet to complete a school assignment. They also were not able to predict accurately how students would
judge browsing the Internet for fun web sites without permission from the
teacher. Both of these differences in judgment were statistically significant
(Table 2).
Predictions of student justifications. In three of the four scenarios, the
majority of preservice teachers were not able to predict students’ justifications accurately. The differences between preservice teachers’ predictions of
students’ justifications and students’ actual justifications are statistically significant. The results show a pattern within the preservice teachers’ predictions of student justifications in the personal domain. Preservice teachers underestimated student justifications in the personal domain for academic uses
of the computer and Internet and overestimated student justifications in the
personal domain for nonacademic uses of the computer and Internet.
Many students reasoned that it is appropriate to copy from the Internet
so that they can improve their grades, finish their work, and do better in
school, but not many preservice teachers predicted that students would give
these personal reasons. Instead, most preservice teachers thought students
would give reasons in the social conventional domain, focusing on rules and
laws, and in the moral domain, focusing on dishonesty and stealing. Teachers expected that students would give more personal reasons for making a
card for a friend and browsing the Internet. The preservice teachers predicted that students would reason that it is their own business to do these behaviors because they want to have fun, but fewer students than preservice teachers predicted gave these personal reasons.
Moral
Soc. Conv.
Personal
Justifications:
Okay
Not Okay
Judgments:
Students
55%
45%
Teachers
26%
65%
9%
Students
26%
49%
25%
Teachers
16%
78%
6%
Students
6%
53%
41%
p=.00,
χ2 (2, N =126) = 21.83
Teachers
5%
62%
33%
Students
13%
86%
1%
p=.00,
χ2 (2, N =122) = 21.64
Students
24%
76%
Teachers
55%
45%
Teachers
53%
47%
Teachers
11%
89%
Students
25%
75%
p=.00,
χ2 (1, N =122) = 12.31
Copy Parts
Text
Nonacademic Computer
Use
Browse
Internet
p=.04,
χ2 (1, N = 130) = 4.28
Copy Entire
Text
Academic Computer Use
Table 2
Elementary School Preservice Teacher Predictions of Student
Judgments and Justifications
Students
72%
28%
Teachers
23%
60%
17%
Students
70%
29%
1%
p=.00,
χ2 (2, N =132) = 31.56
Teachers
65%
35%
Use Computer Software
Digital Dilemmas: How Elementary Preservice Teachers Reason
419
420
Kafai, Nixon, and Burnam
DISCUSSION
The preservice teachers in our study gave rationales for their judgments
that fell mostly into Turiel’s (1983, 2002) social conventional domain that
has a focus on contextual rules. One possible explanation for this result is
that preservice teachers worry about their survival in the classroom (Fuller
& Brown, 1975). As they prepare to enter the teaching profession, they may
be overly concerned with classroom management and student behavior, and
their rationales reflect these concerns. These preservice teachers wanted students to follow school rules for uses of the computer and Internet no matter
what the context. Whether students copy text from the Internet or use the
computer for nonacademic purposes, the preservice teachers relied on socially constructed rules to judge the behaviors as appropriate or inappropriate.
Another explanation for preservice teachers’ emphasis on social conventional rules is that teachers may believe that moral dilemmas of classroom computer use naturally involve common rules at school (Tirri, 1999).
There may be a school culture of computer use that focuses on societal rules
and norms. The preservice teachers had already begun their student teaching
in schools and may have appropriated aspects of this school culture in their
own judgments about appropriate uses of the computer and Internet. Therefore, the preservice teachers may have focused on children following school
rules not because they were concerned with classroom management but because the school culture emphasizes societal norms for appropriate uses of
the computer and Internet.
Our results also show that preservice teachers were able to predict students’ judgments for copying parts of text from the Internet and using computer software for nonacademic purposes, even when their predictions at
times differed from their own judgments. This finding is very positive in
light of the need for educators to be able to know the behaviors students
deem appropriate; however, our results also indicate that the preservice
teachers were not able to predict students’ judgments for copying an entire
poem from the Internet or for browsing the Internet at school without permission. Considering the harsh consequences of violating copyright laws
and the risks of viewing adults-only web sites on the Internet, these scenarios could be judged the more serious student uses of the computer.
Preservice teachers also could not explain why students made their
judgments. More specifically, preservice teachers underestimated student
justifications in the personal domain for the academic uses of the computer
involving copyright infringement, and preservice teachers overestimated student justifications in the personal domain for nonacademic uses of the computer. Preservice teachers could not predict that many students think it is
Digital Dilemmas: How Elementary Preservice Teachers Reason
421
appropriate to copy from the Internet for personal reasons, including the
personal right to copy to do better in school, possibly because they did not
understand the extent to which students view plagiarism as not harming others or having any consequences for anyone else but themselves. With respect to preservice teachers’ predictions of student judgments about the nonacademic uses of the computer and Internet, preservice teachers may have
assumed more students would give personal reasons for browsing the Internet for fun and using nonacademic software without permission because
these uses involve entertainment and personal enjoyment. Yet more students
than preservice teachers predicted were focused on following social conventional rules and on being morally kind and just.
Preservice teachers should be made aware of students’ justifications,
which at times differ from their own justifications, so that preservice teachers can be better prepared to address incidents that may arise in the classroom. For instance, as legal regulations are set into place for what counts as
acceptable in the digital culture, preservice teachers can use pedagogical
strategies that build from students’ prior knowledge and justifications to
help students understand the legal and ethical issues surrounding school uses
of information and content from digital sources such as the Internet.
These results are also particularly relevant as many districts, schools,
and libraries have implemented acceptable use policies to regulate computer
and Internet use (Willard, 2002), often without involving students or understanding why students believe certain uses of the computer are appropriate
or inappropriate. In addition to providing preservice teachers with computer
ethics standards, teacher education programs could incorporate these scenarios into their class discussions to help preservice teachers address these issues. In classrooms, teachers could use moral stories (Narvaez, Gleason,
Mitchell, & Bentley, 1999; Nulden & Ward, 2002) based on these scenarios
to discuss with students.
NEXT STEPS
Our study provided a first understanding of how preservice teachers
reason about the appropriateness of various academic and nonacademic
computer and Internet uses. We realize that the classroom is not the only
place where students learn about these issues; home is also important. A recent incident in which high school students used their computers at home to
copy from the Internet to complete a school botany assignment made the
front page of the New York Times (Wilgoren, 2002). The teacher initially
422
Kafai, Nixon, and Burnam
failed those students but was then pressured by parents and the school board
to reinstate the students’ grades. Consequently, the teacher resigned from the
school and from her teaching career. This incident illustrates that teachers
may hold very different beliefs than students and parents have about what
constitutes appropriate uses of the computer and Internet. Such differences
require us to understand how all stakeholders perceive ethical uses of the
computer and behave accordingly. In a future study we will conduct an investigation of a school community—teachers, students, and their parents—
to understand if differences in justifications regarding the use of computer
technology exist among multiple stakeholders.
We also see the need for more observational research to investigate how
teachers and students deal with copyright infringements and other issues on
a daily basis in the classroom. Preservice teachers’ and students’ justifications may be different from their actual behavior. A limitation of our study is
that we did not observe classroom uses of the computer and Internet to understand how teachers and students respond to real-life dilemmas as they occur in moment-to-moment interactions. The decisions about what is considered appropriate or not are negotiated in everyday contexts between teachers
and students. In a future study, we will investigate how rules and norms,
such as the school’s acceptable use policies, are instantiated by the school
administration and negotiated by students and teachers in everyday classroom practice.
References
Bear, G.G. (1990). Knowledge of computer ethics: Its relationship to computer attitude and sociomoral reasoning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 6(1), 77-87.
Boynton, R.S. (2004, January 25). The tyranny of copyright? The New York
Times Magazine (pp. 40-45).
Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (2000). How people
learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Burnam, B. (2004). Students’ moral reasoning about computer and Internet
use. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los
Angeles.
Burnam, B., & Kafai, Y. B. (2001). Computers and ethics: Children’s moral reasoning about computer and Internet uses. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 25(2), 111-127.
Carpenter, C. (1996). Online ethics: What’s a teacher to do? Learning and
Leading with Technology, 40, 58-60.
Digital Dilemmas: How Elementary Preservice Teachers Reason
423
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cummings, R., Dyas, L., Maddux, C.D., & Kochman, A. (2001). Principled
moral reasoning and behavior of preservice teacher education students.
American Educational Research Journal, 38, 143-158.
Damon, W. (1980). Patterns of change in children’s social reasoning: a
two-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 51(4), 1010-1017.
Davis, R., Samuelson, P., Kapor, M., & Reichman, J. (1996). A new view
of intellectual property and software. Communication of the ACM,
39(3), 21-30.
Dill, B.J., & Anderson, R.E. (2003). Ethics-related technology policies in
schools. Social Science Computer Review, 21(3), 326-339.
Fuller, F., & Brown, O. (1975). Becoming a teacher. In K. Ryan (Ed.),
Teacher Education, 74th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study
of Education (pp. 25-52). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
International Society for Technology in Education (2002). National educational technology standards for teachers: Preparing teachers to use
technology. Washington, D.C.: International Society for Technology in
Education.
Kafai, Y., & Harel, I. (1991). Children learning through consulting: When
mathematical ideas, knowledge of programming and design, and playful discourse are intertwined. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development. San Francisco:
Harper and Row.
Kreie, J., & Cronan, T.P. (1998). How men and women view ethics. Communications of the ACM, 41(9), 70-76.
Kreie, J., & Cronan, T.P. (2000). Making ethical decisions: How companies might influence the choices one makes. Communications of the
ACM, 43(12), 66-71.
McNeel, S.P. (1994). College teaching and student moral development. In
J. R. Rest & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Moral development in the professions:
Psychology and applied ethics (pp. 27-49). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Narvaez, D., Gleason, T., Mitchell, C., & Bentley, J. (1999). Moral theme
comprehension in children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91,
477-487.
Nucci, L. (1996). The personal domain. In E. S. Reed, E. Turiel, & T.
Brown (Eds.), Values and knowledge (pp. 41-50). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Nulden, U., & Ward, B. (2002). Multimedia scenario in a primary school.
Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 14, 61-85.
Peterson, D.K. (2002). Computer ethics: The influence of guidelines and
universal moral beliefs. Information Technology & People, 15, 346-361.
424
Kafai, Nixon, and Burnam
Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of a child. New York: Free Press.
(Original work published 1932).
Rest, J. (1979). Development in judging moral issues. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
Resta, P.E. (1994). Ethical and legal issues in computer-mediated communications: The educational challenge. Machine-Mediated Learning,
4(2&3), 269-280.
Roberts, D.F., Foehr, U.G., Rideout, V.J., & Brodie, M. (1999, November).
Kids and media at the new millenium: A comprehensive national analysis of children’s media use. Menlo Park, CA: The Henry J. Kaiser
Family Foundation.
Swain, C., & Gilmore, E. (2001). Repackaging for the 21st century: Teaching copyright and computer ethics in teacher education courses. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1, 535-545.
Szabo, A., & Underwood, J. (2004). Cybercheats: Is information and communication technology fueling academic dishonesty? Active Learning
in Higher Education, 5, 180-199.
Tirri, K. (1999). Teachers’ perceptions of moral dilemmas at school. Journal of Moral Education, 28, 31-47.
Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Turiel, E. (2002). The culture of morality: Social development, context, and
conflict. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wilgoren, J. (2002, February 14). School cheating scandal tests a town’s
values. The New York Times (p. A1).
Willard, N. (2002). Safe and responsible use of the Internet: A guide for educators. Eugene, OR: Responsible Netizens Institute.
Willard, N. (1996). The cyberethics reader. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Yeazell, M.I., & Johnson, S.F. (1988). Levels of moral judgment of faculty
and students in a teacher education program: A micro study of an institution. Teacher Education Quarterly, 15(1), 61-70.
Acknowledgements
The research reported in this article was funded in part by a UCLA Academic Senate Grant to the first author. An earlier version of this article was
presented at the 2004 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association in San Diego, CA.