by Stephanie E. August,
NSF PROGRAM OFFICER’S VIEWS
Gotterbarn, D. Informatics and Professional
Responsibility. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7, 2 (2001),
Gotterbarn, D. and Riser, R. Ethics Activities in
Computer Science Courses. Computers & Society
Newsletter, 26, 3 (1996), 13–17.
Huff, C.R., Martin, C.D. and Project ImpactCS Steering
Committee. Computing Consequences: A Framework
for Teaching Ethical Computing (First Report of the
ImpactCS Steering Committee). Communications of the
ACM, 38, 12 (1995), 75–84.
Johnson, D.G. Computer Ethics. 4th Edition, Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 2009.
Kling, R. and Dunlop, C. Computerization and
Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices.
Academic Press, New York, NY, 1991.
Liffick, B. Analyzing Ethical Scenarios. Proceedings
of the ETHICOMP95 Conference on Ethical Issues of
Computing, DeMontfort University, Leicester, UK, March,
Martin, C. D., Huff, C. Gotterbarn, D., Miller, K.
Implementing a Tenth Strand in the Computer Science
Curriculum (Second Report of the ImpactCS Steering
Committee), Communications of the ACM, 39, 12 (1996),
Martin, C.D. and Holz, H.J. Integrating Social Impact and
Ethics Issues Across the Computer Science Curriculum.
Information Processing 92: Proceedings of the 12th World
Computer Congress, Madrid Spain, Vol. II: Education
and Society, 239–245. Elsevier Science Publishers, North
Holland, September, 1992.
Miller, K. Computer ethics in the curriculum. Computer
Science Education, 1 (1988), 37–52.
Quinn, M. J. Ethics for the Information Age. 7th Edition,
Pearson Publishing, 2016.
Spinello, R. Cyberethics: Morality and Ethics in
Cyberspace. 6th Edition, Bartlett Jones Publishers, 2017.
Tavani, H. T. Ethics and Technology: Controversies,
Questions, and Strategies for Ethical Computing. 4th
Edition, Wiley Publishing. 2012.
1. ACM. ACM Code of Ethics. 1992; https://www.acm.
org/about-acm/code-of-ethics. Accessed 2017
2. ACM/IEEE Joint Task Force. Software Engineering
Code of Ethics and Professional Practice. 1999;
http://www.acm.org/about/se-code. Accessed 2017
3. Computer Ethics Institute. Ten Commandments
of Computer Ethics. 1992; http://
tencommandments.html. Accessed 2017 January 9.
4. ISSA. ISSA Code of Ethics. 2006; http://www.issa.
5. Knowles, A. The Hacker Rainbow; https://
securityintelligence.com/how-black-hats-and-white-hats-collaborate-to-be-successful/. Accessed 2017
6. Tull, J. A Snapshot in Cybersecurity Ethics; http://
resources/blog/cyber-security-ethics. Accessed 2017
C. Dianne Martin
Department of Computer Science
Science and Engineering Hall
George Washington University
Washington, DC 20052, USA
The work of the NSF Division of Under- graduate Education (DUE) focuses on workforce development, learning and
learning environments, and broadening participation. This month we focus on education research, a foundational component of
many NSF programs and all DUE programs.
The mission of NSF’s Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR), DUE’s
parent organization, includes the goal to
“develop a robust research community that
can conduct rigorous research and evaluation that will support excellence in STEM
education and integrates that research and
education [ 6].” Program Officers Mike Erlinger and Paul Tymann introduced five DUE
programs in previous columns [ 1, 2]:
• “Improving Undergraduate STEM Education: Education and Human Resources” (IUSE: EHR) supports projects that
focus on challenges and opportunities
in undergraduate STEM education [ 8].
• “Education and Human Resources Core
Research: Fundamental Research in
Science, Technology, Engineering and
Mathematics (STEM) Education” (ECR)
supports projects that advance our
understanding of how people learn [ 5].
• “Scholarship in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics” (S-STEM)
addresses two needs: a well-qualified
STEM workforce and increased success
of academically talented, low-income
students in undergraduate and graduate
STEM disciplines [ 7].
• “Advanced Technological Education” (ATE)
focuses on workforce development [ 4].
• “STEM + Computing Partnerships”
(STEM+C) seeks to integrate all forms of
computation into K- 12 education [ 9].
Mike and Paul admonish principal investi-
gators (PIs) to “read and write to the solicita-
tion.” [7: 3] I add that PIs should make certain
the proposed work is informed by the Com-
mon Guidelines for Education Research and
Development [ 3]. These guidelines describe
the understanding shared by NSF and the U.S.
Department of Education about “the roles of
various types or ‘genres’ of research in gener-
ating evidence about strategies and interven-
tions for increasing student learning.” At least
one track in each of the five DUE programs
described above requires a knowledge-gen-
erating component related to research
education, and all reference the Common
Guidelines. The IUSE: EHR solicitation clearly
establishes the reason for this: “Research and
development efforts that increase under-
standing of effective undergraduate STEM
teaching and learning provide the foundation
for building the STEM workforce of tomorrow
and improving scientific literacy.” [ 8]
The solicitations require PIs to look be-
yond the artifacts, activities, or scholarships
that support student success in their pro-
posed work and identify a hypothesis that
reflects the anticipated legacy of the educa-
tion research component of their projects.
We ask what will the community learn about