VSD4TEL Workshop Presentation at EC-TEL23

VSD4TEL workshop
Value-sensitive design
methods for technology-
enhanced learning
Luis P. Prieto, Universidad de Valladolid, luispablo.prieto@uva.es
María Jesús Rodríguez-Triana,TallinnUniversity, mjrt@tlu.ee
YannisDimitriadis, Universidadde Valladolid, yannis@tel.uva.es
5.9.2023 – Aveiro (Portugal)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Motivation
• Recent calls for technology that is more humane
• Including more human-centered TEL and sub-areas like LA, AIED, etc.
• This year's EC-TEL theme: "Responsive and SustainableEducational
Futures"
• "human-centered", "responsible", "responsive … needs of both teachers and
learners"
• Values as a scientifically-studied construct that represents goals, needs,
motivations of people --> what is important to them
• Value-sensitive design (VSD) as a current within human-computer
interaction research that purposely considers human values in designing
technology
• Yet, VSD is scarcely known or appliedin TEL...
• … And there are few examples of TEL-specificVSD (i.e., learning aspect)

Goals of the workshop
After the workshop, we hope participants will...
1. … have improved awareness and knowledge about VSD methods
2. … have started thinking about how TEL-specific VSD methods could
look like
3. … know other TEL researchers applying (or interested in) VSD

Who are we? Hopes
& Fears
• Luis P. Prieto
• Work on learning analytics (esp. multimodal), now
applied to doctoral education... using VSD
• María Jesús Rodríguez-Triana
• Work on learning analytics, inquiry-based
learning, early stakeholder engagement
• Yannis Dimitriadis
• Work on CSCL, learning design, many other
things… and human-centered TEL/LA
• Who are you? Quick round of presentations
• Name
• Affiliation
• Main research interest
• Why did you come to this particular workshop
?

Workshop structure
09:00-09:15 – Introduction to the workshop
9:15-10:30 – A tutorial on value-sensitive design and its methods
10:30-11:00 – Starting the writer's workshop on contributions (I)
11:00-11:30 – Coffee break
11:30-12:45 – Writer's workshop on contributions (II, III, IV)
12:45-13:00 – What next? Future steps for the VSD4TEL community

Part I
A tutorial on VSD and its methods

Workshop structure
09:00-09:15– Introduction to the workshop
• What is value-sensitive design (VSD)?
• What are values?
• Kinds of VSD inquiry
• Ten basic VSD methods
• VSD in TEL: Past, present and future
10:30-11:00– Starting the writer's workshop on contributions (I)
11:00-11:30– Coffee break
11:30-12:45– Writer's workshop on contributions (II, III, IV)
12:45-13:00– What next? Future steps for the VSD4TEL community

First, a word of warning
We are NOT big experts on VSD, and we are learning
the topic ourselves
The workshopas "learningbyteaching" ourpeers':D
Feel free to interrupt and contradict us, so we have a
more balanced/nuancedunderstandingof the topic

What is value-sensitive design (VSD)?
• "Value SensitiveDesign is a theoretically grounded approach to the design
of technology that accountsfor human values in a principled and
comprehensivemanner throughout the design process." (Friedman et al.,
2002)
• Originated in the more ethically-minded side of the human-computer
interaction (HCI) research community
• Recognition of technologyas NOT being value neutral --> it
fosters/espouses certain values, hindering others
• Which values? Privacy? Performance? Informed consent? Calmness?
• Whose values? Designers? Shareholders? (direct) Users?
• VSD tries to systematicallyinquire and design with these questions in mind

What are values anyway?
• In VSD, values are "what is important to people in their lives,with a focus
on ethics and morality." (Friedman et al., 2017)
• Example values studied in VSD/HCI:Human Welfare, Ownership
and Property, Privacy, Freedom from Bias, Universal Usability, Trust,
Autonomy, Informed Consent, Accountability,Identity, Calmness, and
Environmental Sustainability
• Values also studied a lot in cross-cultural psychology (key characteristicof
individuals and cultures)
• There exist values which are universal(e.g., Schwartz's basic values)... what
distinguishes people (and cultures) is their hierarchy (what is often
preferred over what)

Hands-on activity: What are our values?
• Please head to: https://tinyurl.com/VSD4TEL23-PVQ
• Answer those questions quickly (should take 5-10 mins)
• This is the Portrait Values Questionnaire, a widely-validated
instrument to measure individual values across 10 dimensions
proposed in Schwartz's (1992) theory of basic values
• Self-Direction | Stimulation | Hedonism | Achievement | Power | Security |
Conformity | Tradition | Benevolence

Hands-on activity: What are our values?
• Let's look at the results!
• What is the dominant value (on average)?
• Are there differences in terms of age or gender?
• Do you feel identified with this picture (are these things really
important to you)?

Aside: the personal value
of values
• Understandinghumans in terms of their values is not
only useful when designing technology...it is useful in
"real life" as well!
• Typically, we see people in a one-dimensional frame
(good-bad person) ---> this person values things like me
---> this a 10-dimensional (or X-dimensional) space!
• Example: What do you and your spouse (or close family
member) both value very highly? In what ways are your
values different?
• Understandingthis will help you understandwhy
the other person sometimes does stuff you find
baffling (or irritating)
• Understandingothers' values is also very useful in
any negotiation and many other situations!

What counts as VSD? What is VSD good for?
• Explicit labelling/mention of human values
• Consideration of interplay between humans (and specifically their
goals and values) and technology
• Typical outcomes of VSD (Winkler & Spiekermann, 2018):
1. identification of direct and indirect stakeholders;
2. identification and conceptualization of values;
3. understanding of value harms and benefits;
4. development of mitigation strategies for value tensions;
5. presentation of technicalmeasures to address values

VSD as a methodology
• Key aspect of VSD: it is a way of doing research/design of tech
• Iterative: As in many other areas of HCI (and TEL!) there is value in
studying a problem multiple times using different foci, different
methods, different populations, etc.
• Integrative: VSD is applied throughout the design process (not just
the beginning, or the end, as a "plug-in"), there's methods to consider
and investigate values at different stages
• More on that later
• Its key features are very compatible with popular (iterative) TEL
methodologies like design-based research (DBR, see Wang &
Hannafin, 2005)

Kinds of VSD inquiry:
Conceptual, Empirical...
• Conceptual: philosophically informed analyses of the central constructs and
issues under investigation.
• Asking and answering with arguments/literature questions like: How is value X
defined/conceptualized in a philosophically-informed manner? Who is affected
directly/indirectly by the system?How are values supported/diminished by certain designs?
How should we navigate tradeoffs between values? Should moral values trump non-moral
preferences? Etc.
• There's specific methods = ways of going around thinking about these key VSD issues
• Empirical: gathering actual data from the contextwhere the technology is
situated
• To better understand the human values at play, or evaluate the success of the
designed technology in supporting/hindering values
• All the range of quantitative and qualitative empirical methods can be used for this
• Asking and answering questions like: How do stakeholders apprehend or prioritize individual
values in this TEL context? How do organizations appropriate the value considerations in the
technology? Is the usability independent, hindering, supporting or trading-off with human
values of moral import like fairness, autonomyor privacy?

Kinds of VSD inquiry:
… and Technical
• Technical: evaluate how existing technological properties
and underlying mechanisms support or hinder human values... or
proactively design systems to support values identified in a
conceptual investigation.
• Isn't this the same as empirical? According to Friedman et al. (2002), NO –
empirical focuses on people, technicalfocuses on the technology as the unit
of analysis
• All types are equally important!
• The best VSD studies apply all of them to gain a more complete view
of the interactions between people's values and technologies

An example of VSD in TEL
(from Chen & Zhu, 2019)
• Goal: designing recommendation algorithms for group formation in Wikipedia’s
WikiProjects
• VSD methods used:
1. Identify stakeholder values & trade-offs, via lit. review [C] and survey (N=59 WikiProjects
members) [E]
2. Identify algorithmic approaches and develop prototypes to match key values and tradeoffs
[T]
3. Engageand work closely with the WikiProjects community (co-design research plan)
4. Deploy and iteratively refine algorithms, over 6 months, via short surveys and interviews
[E]
5. Evaluate acceptance, accuracy and impacts of the algorithms, using interviews, surveys and
log analysis [E]
• Result:

VSD methods: Introduction
• The VSD research community (in HCI) has been very diligent in
gathering and formalizing/labelling its practices = methods in VSD
• They include processes, tools and guides for conceptual, technical,
empirical investigations at different stages of the design process
• Friedman et al. (2017) proposed 14 methods, Friedman & Hendry
(2019) added a few more
• Here, we will briefly describe up to 10 of the most basic ones (depending on
time available and discussions generated)… and try a few ones practically

VSD methods
Direct/Indirect Stakeholder Analysis
• Reflect deeply on who uses and is impactedby the (TEL) system:
• Direct stakeholders interact directly with the technology
• Indirect stakeholders do not interact but may be affected by the technology
• Establish also how they may be affected:benefits, harms, tensions
• Stakeholders include not only individuals and groups but also institutions
and societies
• This is one of the most basic conceptual investigation methods
• Could also be used empirically, or used in co-design/roleplaying sessions with
participants
• More details in Friedman et al. (2017) and Nathan et al. (2008)
• Examples in TEL: Chen & Zhu, 2019 (Study I)… and see Buchem & Thomas's
contribution in the second half of the workshop

Hands-on activity:
Do a quick stakeholder analysis
• Do groups of 3-4 people, preferably diverse (gender, institution)
• Look at this scenario: In doctoral education there are high rates of
dropouts and mental health issues (e.g., depression). As TEL
researchers, you want to build an AI system that doctoral students
use to get both mental health and productivity/academic advice.
• Steps:
1. Spend 2 min brainstorming direct/indirect stakeholders individually
2. Spend 5-10 min discussing the stakeholder ideas, and how they may be
impacted by the system (benefits, harms, tensions)
3. One group will be randomly selected to present their analysis

VSD methods
Co-Evolution of Technology and Social Structure
• Most technical design considers the technology in relative isolation,
with a static view on policy, law, and other social structures
• In VSD, we also consider designing also the social structures around
the use of the (TEL) technology (policy, law, regulations,
organizational practices, social norms, etc.)
• Example (not in TEL): Miller et al., 2007 designed the technology and
managerial policy (e.g., rewards) of a knowledge and code base
system
• This can be both a conceptual VSD method, and serve to
organize/refocus the research/design process (meta-method?)

VSD methods
Value Scenarios
• Scenarios have been used in user-centered design to focus on and
communicateabout discrete features of a technology and the immediate
context of use
• Value scenarios extend this idea to emphasize: (a) implications for direct
and indirect stakeholders, (b) key values, (c) widespread use, (d) indirect
impacts, (e) longer-term use, and (f) systemiceffects
• Can be used as value representations in conceptual or empirical
VSD investigations... but also as value elicitation (ask stakeholders to
propose scenarios!)
• Examples in TEL: Prieto et al. (2023) (presentation on Thursday afternoon)
used value scenarios both to represent key stakeholder values and to elicit
features that participants considered aligned with a key value for them

VSD methods
Value-oriented Mockup, Prototype or Field
Deployment
• Mock-ups, prototypes, and field deployments can be employed to scaffold the
investigation of value implications of technologies that have yet to be built or widely
adopted
• VSD adapts these empirical methods to emphasize implications for direct and indirect
stakeholders, value tensions, and technology situated in human contexts.
• Example (not from TEL): Denning et al., 2010, on medical/health security apps

VSD methods
Value-oriented Semi-structured Interview
• Interview questions can be honed to elicit information about values
and value tensions in relation to technology.
• Typical questions:
• stakeholders’ evaluative judgments about a technology (e.g., “Is it all right or not all
right that technology X has feature Y or behavior Z?)
• Rationales (e.g., “Why or why not?).
• Value tensions through alternative resolutions of the tension and inquiring which
resolution (if any) resonates (e.g., “Some people like X about the system for Y reason.
Other people like A about the system for B reason. Are your views more similar to
one person or the other? Why?”).
• The semi-structurednature of the interview provides an opportunity to
pursue topics empirically,in depth,as well to engage new considerations
the stakeholder introduces into the conversation.
• Examples in TEL: Prieto et al. (2023),and (probably) Study II in Chen & Zhu,
2019

VSD methods
Value Sketch
• Sketches, collage, and other visual expressions provide a means to tap into non-verbal
understandings (often, in empirical investigations)
• Value sketches emphasize understandings, views, and values about a (TEL) technology.
“Show” rather than “tell” what is important to them in relation to a particular
technology in a particular context
• Sketches can also clarify how a technology is situated in place or how particular values
are implicated by technical functioning
• As scenarios, sketches can be used for value representation or elicitation
• Example (not from TEL): Sketches about how users understand a secure connection, in
Figure 2.1 of Friedman et al. (2017)

Hands-on activity:
Do a quick value sketch
• Keep the same groups of 3-4 people
• Continuing with our previous setting of an AI advisor to address the dropout and mental
health issues of doctoral students, prior empirical investigations showed 3 key values for
participant doctoral students: 1) Self-direction (independent thought and
action, choosing, creating, and exploring; 2) Universalism (understanding, appreciation,
tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all people and of nature); and 3)
Benevolence (preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with whom one is
in frequent personal contact)
• Can you produce a sketch of a system that represents ONE of these values?
• Steps:
1. Select a value your group will work on (Self-Direction, Benevolence or Universalism)
2. Do a first individual sketch in 2-3 minutes
3. Share your sketches in the group, and select the sketch you think best represents the value – or
mix and match different parts/sketches which you think should be kept (5-10 min)
4. One group will be randomly selected to report their best sketch attempt

VSD methods
Value-oriented Coding Manual
• Coding manuals (a.k.a. codebooks) as a systematic means for coding
and analyzing qualitative responses to interviews, etc.
• Including those elicited with Value Scenarios, Value Sketches, Value
Prototypes, etc.
• Typically, each category in the manual contains a label, definition, and
as a rule of thumb up to three sample responses from the data.
• These can include values, but also other technological and social aspects
• Especially useful in scaffolding empirical investigations, but often
emanate from a prior deep conceptual investigation
• Examples (not from TEL) available in Friedman et al. (2017)

VSD methods
Ethnographically-informed Inquiry on Values
and Technology
• Ethnographic research focused at the intersection of technology and
human activity,to probe the complex relationshipsamong values,
technology and social structure,particularly as those relationships
unfold over time.
• Tries to identify and clarify values and value tensions, throught in-depth
engagementin situated contexts over longer durations.
• How a community and its members adapt to exiting technologies, and how
they shape those technologies
• Often interested in situations where strongly held individual or community
values may come into tensionwith behaviors or experiences facilitated by
the technology
• Examples in TEL: Alonso-Prieto (see the second half of the workshop)
proposes something like this for teacher agency in TEL

VSD methods
Value Dams and Flows
• At key points in a design process, there is a need to reduce the
solution space and resolve value tensions among design choices
• Dams and Flows as an analytic method (meta-method?) to do this:
• Dams: design options that even a small percentage of stakeholders
strongly object to (7-10%?) are removed from the design space.
• Flows: design options that a good percentage of stakeholders find appealing
are foregrounded in the design.
• Can be applied to both technology and social structure design
• Examples in TEL: Prieto et al. (2023) mentions certain dams and flows
that result from the empirical investigation of doctoral student values

VSD methods
Envisioning Cards™
• Practical tool to bring VSD theory and method into industry and
educational practice.
• 32 cards, on four categories: stakeholders, time, values, and
pervasiveness
• Again, this is more of a "meta-method" for the design/research team
• See more about them at http://www.envisioningcards.com/
• Example: Changing Hands card

Towards TEL-specific VSD methods?
The workshop's contributions
• You may have noticed comparatively few TEL-specific examples of VSD use
• We need more TEL researchers using VSD!
• There are even less TEL-specific VSD methods (none?)
• Are there values that are specifically important in TEL?
• How to integrate the learning element into VSD's focus on technology design?
• Six submissions to the workshop, attemptingto fill this gap:
1. Alonso-Prieto: Teacher agency as a key TEL value (or meta-value?)
2. Alwahaby & Cukurova: Ethical/Value considerations of stakeholders in multimodal
LA
3. Buchem & Thomas: Calmness as a value in classrooms with humanoid robots
4. Duong-Trung et al.: Federated Learning as a technology to support privacy value
5. Prieto: A multi-layered approach to investigate learner values in TEL (what values
to study in TEL?)
6. Sung et al.: Well-being as a key value in LA, personalized feedback platform

VSD in TEL: Past, present and future
• VSD (in HCI) is itself a relatively young sub-field, still evolving and
facing many challenges
• See Friedman et al. (2021) for 8 Grand Challenges, e.g., how to address value
tensions
• Specifically in TEL, VSD application is even more in its infancy
• More examples of TEL design framed as VSD and using VSD methods needed
• Do we need specific conceptual frames for VSD in TEL? (e.g., defining TEL- or
learning-related values)
• Can VSD methods be adopted as-is unproblematically? Do we need particular
VSD methods to design TEL innovations?
• … and more.

Part II
Writer's workshop on the
submitted contributions

Workshop structure
• Paper 1 presentation (2')
• Audience summaries + confirmation (5')
• Positive feedback (5')
• Suggestions for improvement (10')
• Author questions (3')

What's a "writer's workshop" (WW)?
• Method used to teach writing (esp. creative writing) at all levels (from
primary schools to professional/adult writers)
• Focus on frequent/extended writing, but also sharing the writer's work,
multiple iterations and lots of feedback (often, from peers)
• Many different flavours and methodologies
• Key feature: focus on appreciating and critiquing the work (not the author)
• In this 2nd half of the workshop, we use it both as a method to develop
particular contributions/papersfor future submission to a larger venue,
and to learn more deeply about VSD methods and how they could apply in
TEL

WW: Requirements and Peculiarities
• In today's particular flavor, given the depth of the contributions (not
just a short piece), we asked active participants to read the
contributions beforehand
• If you did not, we still like you :) and you're welcome to stay and learn – but
let the people that read the work discuss
• We will follow a quite structured and time-stringent script (so as
to keep things on time and be able to discuss all contributions)
• The script will feel unnatural at first (e.g., not talking TO the author,
but among the critics), but trust the process - it's been shown to
work for many people before

WW: Group formation
• Initially, we chose to do single-track discussions (everyone involved)
• … but there is way more people in the room than we expected :) Does
it still work?
• It depends on how many people are actively involved in the discussion
• How many of you have read ALL contributions? SOME? ONE? NONE?
• Idea: do a sort of "fishbowl" discussion? (inner + outer circle)
• Idea: you can also give feedback to each paper through a feedback
form: https://tinyurl.com/VSD4TEL23-FB

Blending Federated Learning and
Value-Sensitive Design for Ethics and
Privacy-Preserving in Education
Nghia Duong-Trung, Matteo Orsoni, Alexander Pögelt and Miloš Kravčík
https://tinyurl.com/VSD4TEL23-FB

Step 1: Paper presentation (2')
• Moderator introduces title and author: “Today we have honour to
discuss <author>'s work called <title>”
• The author reads a short piece of his/her work, for example the
abstract
• The author can shortly tell participants about the background of the
work, e.g., “I found these patterns while working on XX doing YY”.

Step 2: Audience summary + confirmation (5')
• One or more of the participants to give a short summary of the
paper
• One can start, others can fill in additional details
• The author confirms if the readers have understood the contents of
the paper.
• Author can judge this based on the summaries that the participants gave.
• If readers have misunderstood the paper, the author can give some guidance.
• From now on, the author moves to the outer ring and does not
participate into the discussions (a "fly on the wall")
• The author will make notes for him/herself.

Step 3: Positive feedback (5')
• From now on, the author is referred to only by using such terms as
“the author”
• Participants will not even look at the author!
• But the author can be asked questions for clarification during the workshop,if
needed
• Participants say which parts of the paper they especially like and
what the author should definitely keep in his/her work.
• If some participant agrees with another participants opinion, (s)he
will say “gush”, to avoid repeating the same things again and again

Step 4: Suggestions for improvement (10')
• Participants look at their notes and write 3 post-its with the 3 most
important suggestions for improvement
• Put your name on each post-it
• As time is too limited, choose 1 post-it per person and do a first round of
discussion of suggestions
• Do not just say what is wrong with the paper, also how the work could be
improved
• “The author could improve this paper by....”
• Focusing questions:
• How to make the paper into a VSD methods contribution?
• How to expand the contribution so it is publishable in a top-level journal?
• When time is up, give the un-discussed post-its to the author, who can consider
them and ask the critic for clarification after the session
• … or just use the feedback form at https://tinyurl.com/VSD4TEL23-FB

Step 5: Author questions (+ gratitude) (3')
• Give a summary of the discussions during the workshop
• The summary should contain also positive comments
• The author is asked back to the inner ring of the workshop and (s)he
is given an opportunity to ask questions for clarification
• E.g. “What did you mean when you said...”, “This …. remained unclear as the
discussion moved on.
• The purpose is to get clarifications, not to commenton the suggestions.
• Author is not allowed to explain or present excuses.
• The workshop participants thank the author for the work well
done by applauding while standing up.

Coffee break!
See you back here at 11:30 (?)

Workshop structure
• Paper 2 presentation (2')
• Audience summaries + confirmation (5')
• Positive feedback (5')
• Suggestions for improvement (10')
• Author questions (3')
• Rinse and repeat for papers 3,4

Integrating Teacher Agency and
Value Sensitive Design in TEL
studies
Víctor Alonso-Prieto https://tinyurl.com/VSD4TEL23-FB

Multimodal Learning
Analytics from an Ethical
Perspective: Applying Value Sensitive
Design for A Guidance Framework
Haifa Alwahaby, Mutlu Cukurova https://tinyurl.com/VSD4TEL23-FB

Designing Social Human-Robot
Interactions for Calmness. A Value
Sensitive Design of “Breathe & Relax
with NAO”.
Ilona Buchem and Emily Thomas https://tinyurl.com/VSD4TEL23-FB

What next?
Future steps for the VSD4TEL
community

Potential future steps
• A future for the contributions:
• Special issue at BJET (still unconfirmed) or other journal (IxDxA? Others?)
• Edit a book (offer by Springer Nature)
• … others?
• Increasing visibility/awareness of VSD in TEL
• Joint paper about the topic (e.g., JLS's "Reports and Reflections")
• EATEL SIG?
• Other ideas?
• Community building
• Regular meetings (or mailing list?) to group researchers?
• Another VSD4TEL workshop? When/Where?
• Same focus on methods or something else?
• … other ideas?
• What shall we do?? What do we prioritize? Who takes the lead?

Our workshop goals... did we achieve them?
After the workshop, we hope participants will...
1. … have improved awareness and knowledge about VSD methods
2. … have started thinking about how TEL-specific VSD methods could
look like
3. … know other TEL researchers applying (or interested in) VSD
Show of hands, rate each goal 1-5 (1-not at all – 5-fully) with your
fingers!

Thank you! :)
Don't forget the next steps!
For further information, contactus at luispablo.prieto@uva.es
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The present work has been supported by grants RYC2021-032273-I and PID2020-112584RB-C32, funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and the
European Union’s ”NextGenerationEU/PRTR”. Ithas also been supported by the Estonian Research Council’s Personal Research Grant (PRG) under grant number

Basic VSD method references
• Friedman, B., Hendry, D. G., & Borning, A. (2017). A survey of value
sensitive design methods. Foundations and Trends® in Human–
Computer Interaction, 11(2), 63-125.
• Friedman, B., & Hendry, D. G. (2019). Value sensitive design: Shaping
technology with moral imagination. MIT Press.

References
Chen,B., & Zhu,H. (2019, March). Towards value-sensitivelearninganalytics design.In Proceedings of the 9th international
conference on learninganalytics & knowledge (pp. 343-352).
Denning, T., Borning,A., Friedman,B., Gill,B. T., Kohno,T.,& Maisel, W. H. (2010, April).Patients,pacemakers,and implantable
defibrillators:Human values and securityfor wireless implantable medical devices.In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on
human factors in computingsystems (pp.917-926).
Friedman,B., Kahn,P., & Borning, A. (2002). Value sensitive design:Theory and methods. UniversityofWashingtontechnical report,
2(8).
Friedman,B., Harbers, M., Hendry, D. G., van den Hoven, J., Jonker, C., & Logler, N. (2021). Eight grand challenges for value sensitive
design from the 2016 Lorentz workshop.Ethics and Information Technology,23, 5-16.
Miller, J. K., Friedman,B., Jancke, G., & Gill,B. (2007, November). Value tensions in design:the value sensitive design,development,
and appropriationofa corporation's groupware system.In Proceedings of the 2007 ACM International Conference on Supporting
Group Work (pp.281-290).
Nathan,L. P., Friedman,B., Klasnja,P., Kane, S. K., & Miller, J. K. (2008, February).Envisioningsystemiceffects on persons and society
throughoutinteractive system design.In Proceedings of the 7th ACMconference on Designing interactive systems (pp.1-10).
Prieto,L. P., Rodríguez-Triana,M. J., Dimitriadis,Y.,Pishtari,G., & Odriozola-González, P. (2023, August).Designing Technologyfor
Doctoral Persistence and Well-Being:Findings from a Two-CountryValue-SensitiveInquiryinto StudentProgress.In European
Conference on TechnologyEnhanced Learning(pp.356-370). Cham:Springer Nature Switzerland.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure ofvalues:Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries.In
Advances in experimental social psychology(Vol.25, pp. 1-65). Academic Press.
Wang, F., & Hannafin,M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learningenvironments.Educational technology
research and development,53(4), 5-23.
Winkler, T., & Spiekermann,S. (2021). Twentyyears of value sensitive design:a review of methodological practices in VSD projects.
Ethics and Information Technology,23,17-21.

VSD4TEL Workshop Presentation at EC-TEL23

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to VSD4TEL Workshop Presentation at EC-TEL23

Similar to VSD4TEL Workshop Presentation at EC-TEL23 (20)

More from lprisan

More from lprisan (11)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

VSD4TEL Workshop Presentation at EC-TEL23