Instructional designers have been instrumental in shaping learning experiences for almost a century—contributing to perceptions of what instructional experiences should be considered valuable, worthwhile, and rigorous. However, instructional theories and models of instructional design practice have rarely considered the ethical role of the designer in creating equitable and inclusive futures. In this chapter, I use two vignettes of instructional design work framed by facial recognition technologies to locate ethical tensions between designers and learners, identifying opportunities to leverage the mediating role of the designer. I describe potential ways forward for researchers, educators, and students that reposition ethics at the core of the discipline.

As technology solutions continue to grow in complexity, the choices facing those who wish to use them both effectively and ethically continue to grow more complex. The purpose of this chapter is to present the Ethical Choices with Educational Technology framework translated from K-12 setting use to instructional design practices in any setting (ECET ID). Two competing instructional design tool resources are compared and scored using the ECET ID framework to illustrate how it can help a designer choose a multimedia production tool that a.) meets the needs of their idea, b.) is feasible to use by their clients in the time available, and c.) is deemed to have the best ethical outcomes from design through use.

The deficiencies of instructional design models are that they do not explicitly provide guidance on how to address systemic implications of design decisions and activities. Decision-making is an activity in which instructional designers engage continuously throughout their design projects. The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of an ethical decision-making process. Recommendations are offered on how instructional designers can address ethical decisions and their consequences in their design practices.

As climate change driven by human consumption in capitalist economies continues to increase, instructional designers must be aware of the consequences of their technology acquisition decisions for the environment. Much of our ecological impact hides behind product ordering interfaces with simple pricing; however, the costs are present from the moment we select tools. This chapter aims to depict educational technology decisions made by instructional designers and educators as ones infused with ethical questions and consequences in the globalized supply chain and throughout the life cycle of each device employed. Taking an indigenous worldview towards sustainability, coupled with an engineering life-cycle cost analysis that incorporates environmental considerations, we illustrate the questions facing instructional designers who seek to consider their technology choice impacts more ethically regarding the environment and those involved in the process of computer manufacture. Finally, we offer recommendations for mitigating ecological harm after the decision to acquire new learning technologies.

Imagine a makerspace deliberately designed to maximize creativity and inspire racially minoritized participants, especially Black children, where they can freely explore all levels of creativity. At the heart of the chapter, we are looking to address the open nature of makerspaces and allowing Black students the flexibility to iterate, prototype, and fail without While equity and access in makerspace environments have begun to be areas of focus within the informal learning research community, more research is needed that investigates the types of engagement. Particularly for Black students, discussions of equitable access are followed by the interrogation of tools, curriculums, and design of the learning environment. However, there is very little around the creative exploration and collaborative relationships fostered by participation in the makerspace. In this chapter, I am looking to address the open nature of makerspaces and allowing Black students the flexibility to iterate, prototype, and fail without consequences.

Deeper assumptions frequently shape the ways educational technology stakeholders collect and use data. This influence of assumptions on data decisions makes it critical that educational technology stakeholders engage with deeper assumptions as part of ethical considerations; indeed, they are key to ensuring that stakeholders engage with structural issues in education and educational technology rather than use ethical compliance as a superficial nod to questions of justice, harm, and power. In this chapter, I illustrate the relationship between deep assumptions and data ethics by considering assumptions related to four broad questions about the purpose of education, the purpose of educational technology, the determination of quality in educational (technology) research, and who has what say in these domains. Debates about data ethics are often better understood as debates about these deeper assumptions, which must be surfaced to consider data ethics in our field thoroughly.

This chapter outlines a novel instructional design for distance education and explores its likely effects, including ethical impacts, for adult learners. The instructional design has adult distance learners nominate two learning supporters from their ‘home’ environment, such as family or friends. The teacher or facilitator role pivots from focusing on the learner toward guiding the nominated home-based supporters to support the learner. In turn, adult learners engage in some teaching of course concepts to their home-based family or friend supporters. Underlying this instructional design is a rejection of the idea of an independent adult learner in favour of seeing the learner as an interdependent person. The ‘home-support’ approach is rooted in the value of reciprocity. It addresses a key problem for adults learning in an online distance context: difficulty in achieving time on task. However, it carries risks for the learner, involving access, equity and autonomy. This chapter discusses these ethical concerns and recommends avenues to mitigate the risks.