WORKSHEET: Technoethics for Social Justice

Carla, Lindsay, Julia, and Jeremy

Adapted from Krutka, Heath, Willet (2020) Critical Technoethical Topics for Technology and Teacher Education

Purpose
“Technologies are not neutral, and neither are the societies to which they are introduced” (Krutka, Heath, & Mason, In press). As
educators working to change unjust structures in schools, we have an obligation to interrogate the technologies we use with our
students. We also have an obligation to interrogate the schools and classrooms to which we introduce these technologies. Finally, we
have an obligation to act. Acting with care to change unjust structures is central to social justice. Fr. Arrupe (1973) argued that “...in
the last analysis, it is the oppressed who must be the principal agents of change. The role of the privileged is to assist them; to
reinforce with pressure from above the pressure exerted from below on the structures that need to be changed.” We can make change
by acting through our pedagogy, through our personal lives, and as a collective to make institutional change.

This worksheet is designed to help you analyze technologies and the societies to which they are introduced, in order to take informed
actions for social justice.

Directions
This worksheet has three parts.
Part I - Technoethcial Analysis
1. Complete the chart using different lenses to analyze a technology in order to consider its potential effects on the unjust
structures of school. Refer to the Technoethics for Social Justice Lenses as needed.
Part II - Inequities in Technology and Society
1. Synthesize your findings to identify inequities in the technology and in society that will complicate a just implementation of
the technology.
2. Conclude the best ways to use (and not use) the technology.
Part III - Informed Action for Social Justice
1. Identify ways that you can make change in your school, your life, and your community, as a result of your conclusions about
the technology.
 Part I - Analyze a Technology

Name of Technology: Class Dojo

Lens Compelling Questions Response to Compelling Questions (Include reasoning and

support)

Environmental Were the raw materials for this
Justice technology ethically sourced?
Is the energy needed to power
the technology ethically
sourced?
My belief is that the creation of the tech is not environmentally just.
Found this article about how even the power cords for our old device
are cluttering the earth. “There are approximately 50 million tons of
eWaste an”
If communication for students and parents only happens in this
method, then regardless of multiple means of communication it is
dependent on a system that is unhealthy for the planet.

Democratic Does this technology afford or

Justice (Attends constrain democracy and justice In the article titled “Privacy Concerns for ClassDojo and Other
particularly to for all people and groups? Tracking Apps for Schoolchildren” in The New York Times, Natasha
identity. Ie. Singer states, “ These critics also say that the carrot-and-stick method
racial, of classroom discipline is outmoded, and that behavior apps
indigenous, themselves are too subjective, enabling teachers to reward or penalize
disability, and students for amorphous acts like “disrespect.” Disrespect is a
gender justice) subjective term and often contains bias and does not account for
cultural difference. Different cultures have different values.

Class Dojo does not address students with disabilities. Class Dojo
states that it is totally ‘customizable’, which a user posted about
customizing to adjust for IEP’s and 504 plans, however doesn’t
address how this subjective behavior-based program addresses all
 students.

Legal Justice Are laws that apply to our use of
this technology just?
In the “The datafication of discipline: ClassDojo,
surveillance and a performative classroom culture”, the author
discusses not using Dojo because of “student shaming, data privacy
and family access equity.” Jamie Manolev, Anna Sullivan & Roger
Slee (2019)

While student shaming is not illegal in the sense of discipline, it may

be included in a Teachers Code of Conduct. Student shaming has
come to the forefront with the issue regarding students not being able
to afford their lunch and lawsuits surrounding this issue. There is a
sound alert on Class Dojo that lets the students know when they have
gained points but an obvious sound of disappointment when students
lose points. This can be shameful to a student. When shaming does
occur, it can be a very powerful experience, entailing “a painful
negative scrutiny of the self — a feeling that ‘I am unworthy,
incompetent, or bad,’ ” explains psychologist June Price Tangney
(1995, p. 117).

The issue of data privacy can come into account depending on who
this behavioral data is shared with. On the Class Dojo web site they
post:
“Here are our promises to you:

We don’t share any of your information or students’ information with

advertisers or marketers.
We don’t own anything you add to ClassDojo: you do.
Students’ portfolios are private to the classroom.
We use the latest security best practices to protect you at all times.
We are compliant with COPPA, FERPA, and GDPR in Europe.
We will notify you if we make any changes to our practices.”
 Economic Are the ways the developers
Justice profit from this technology
ethical?
Are non-exploitative labor
practices used in the design,
development, and
manufacturing of the
technology?
Technological What are unintended and
Justice unobvious problems to which
this technology might
contribute?
(Postman, 1997)
Is the technology designed
ethically?
Is the technology used ethically? in the school year. I was advised to remove all purple from my music
Class Dojo is free to download and use and they received fund
investments of up to $21 million.
Classdojo.com says they plan on making money through premium
features schools and parents can pay for.
ClassDojo exists as an instrument of governance available to schools
through which political objectives that prioritise state interests may be
realised (Williamson 2017a). (Manolev, Sullivan, & Slee, 2019, p. 47).
ClassDojo capitalises on this nexus of contextual elements, emerging
from the ed-tech sector as an attractive proposition for teachers and
schools in search of an innovative technological datafication tool to
support teaching practice and student learning (Barseghian 2011).
(Manolev, Sullivan, & Slee, 2019, p. 42).
There is no info on labor practices used in the design, development,
and manufacturing of Class Dojo.
Is the technology used ethically? The technology streamlines
behavioral problems and the problems of catching behaviors. With the
Avatars being the main culprit. “Avatars objectify children and erase
difference”. And in order to improve the avatar’s image (something
students would do with parents) more of the parental information is
needed, thus the design is technologically unethical.
Unintended and unobvious problems? The power of a purple egg
shaker. In a prek-3 class I used to be a drop in teacher for, I started late
gear for the kids. All scarves, all eggies, all stickies, no purple. One
day I forgot this and did not remove the dark indigo eggie from the
pass-around basket. Stampede, they fought over the purple stuff; I still
don’t understand, I bought guitars with scratches and cars with dents. I

Pedagogical In what ways does this
Justice technology afford and constrain
learning opportunities?
don’t see where the kids like certain things like a particular color, I
just grab the utility driven choice. Same thing happened with DoJo
where students were fighting for certain avatar colors and shapes. And
then they change! So the educator is just using the name when
inputting. This causes the same kind of failure as the purple eggie, you
wouldn’t know unless told or experience the failure.
In my experience the Classdojo there are moments when the teacher
becomes a record keeper of misbehaviors, this breaks the needed
building of relationships. With a finger hovering over points up and
down there is a slight power felt that parents can instantly know how a
student is doing behavior wise. With dojo points being so quick given
and the device put down to continue with class, the old “calling-home-
after-school” has been instantly shrunk to “now”. I missed the
notification that a parent was coming to speak to me about a situation
with the school day still going. I was unaware that points taken from
this particular student would have such grave consequences. The uncle
of a student functioning as a temporary guardian became the “parent”
on the other end of ClassDoJ negative points messages and my student
had enough cumulative points to warrant a response from the
“guardian” in a text message. Long story short CPS kinda gets
involved. Uncle gets an explanation on how the DoJo is more of a
monitor and tracker at our school with little real consequences until an
office referral is made that harsher response from the uncle was
amended. I stopped using dojo negatively with that class and only
positive points are put in. This diminishes the goal of DoJo, but allows
for the importance of student-teacher relationships in order for trust
and learning to occur, while allowing families to remain calm.
 Part II - Inequities in Technology and Society

Technological Inequities

What unjust technoethical issues must be addressed in order for a just implementation of this technology?

According to Williamson, ClassDojo’s capacity to function as a technology of control is evident. He argues that ClassDojo acts as a
key technology of government, enacting governmental policy agendas aimed at changing the behaviour of students, and that
ClassDojo’s focus on the psychology of students aligns neatly with existing dominant psychological approaches to school discipline.
(Manolev, Sullivan, & Slee, 2019, p. 37).

They must stop the surveillance of students' behavior. Students must be treated equally. This app is subjective to the teachers
opinion of the students. Teachers can use their own biases when marking students down for behavior. Students' privacy has to be
corrected. Students should not be able to see the points of another student. The sound the app makes when students are marked
down or up is different so students are able to tell what kind of point they received or didn’t recieve. Teachers are also able to
subjectively label the behavior of students and these labels can follow students for years to come.

Social Inequities

What unjust social structures must be addressed in order for a just implementation of this technology?

Before implementing ClassDojo in their classes, teachers must question what information they are collecting and what purpose(s)
that data will serve. While it appears to be a fun, simple tool to monitor behaviors in the classroom, it can “undermine intrinsic
motivation and the development of self-regulation” if used only to collect data (Manolev, Sullivan, & Slee, 2019, p. 41). It
encourages the datafication and surveillance of students, as opposed to promoting proper social-emotional development in students.
Tools like ClassDojo not only cause students to quantify their progress, making them reluctant to accept a growth mindset, but they
also isolate those who do not fit a teacher or school’s definition of a well-behaved, successful student. If a teacher wants to “develop
in students the skills and qualities necessary for their future success as ethical, successful twenty-first-century citizens” with
ClassDojo, I suggest that they consider the following concerns (Taylor and Kearney, 2018):
1. Determine why you are collecting this information. Are you trying to manipulate student development or encourage student
growth? This data can be helpful when talking with families to discuss strategies that promote positive behaviors and healthy
social-emotional development.
2. Be mindful of subjective behaviors and bias. When communicating with families about a child’s day in class, it isn’t helpful
to have notes saying that a student is “disrespectful” because your perspective may differ from a student or their family’s.
3. Recognize that your students’ realities outside of the classroom differ from one another. Some families may not be able to be
as attentive to ClassDojo as others, and students should not be penalized for this.
4. Acknowledge how ClassDojo can affect student self-esteem. From encouraging avatar customization to enabling negative
point sounds on the site, these small details can have a huge impact on how students view themselves. Developing resilience
and embracing a growth mindset is key; teachers should not use this tool to do the opposite.

Conclusion

Should you/your district use this technology? If so, what is the most just method for implementation?

Based on the information discovered by our group, we conclude that this tool should not be used in our schools. While its Class
Story and communication features may be used to create an online community for students and their families, it is overall an unjust
tool. First, teachers can penalize students for subjective behaviors, which can have a negative impact on their self-esteem. Second, it
disregards the issue of family access equity and the inequalities that different students within the same class face outside of the
school setting. Finally, it normalizes systemic issues we see in schools across the country, such as surveillance and datafication of
students. We feel that there are other better ways to promote social-emotional development in students, and we would encourage
teachers to explore other options with help from their school’s technology department.