Meeting the Ethics Challenge In Engineering Education ... - CiteSeerX

Session S1E

Meeting the Ethics Challenge In Engineering Education: Re-Accreditation And Beyond José A. Cruz1, William J. Frey2, Halley D. Sanchez3, and Miguel A. Torres4

Abstract - Our experience has shown that one of the most effective and efficient ways to meet the ABET EC 2000 ethics challenge is a program of ethics across the curriculum integrated with an elective stand alone course in engineering ethics. In this presentation we describe the tools and strategies we have used to foster ethics across the curriculum in engineering at our university and to instantiate its continuous improvement. We will highlight faculty training by focusing on the two-day workshop we have developed that has proven to be effective in providing engineering faculty with the skills to enable them to integrate ethics into mainstream engineering courses. We will argue that our approach effectively fosters the ethics integration aimed at by ABET criteria. An integral part of our approach has been the use of ethics tests which allow for the integration of ethical considerations into engineering decisions and projects without requiring that engineers master the underlying ethical theory. Index Terms – ABET EC 2000, engineering ethics, ethics across the curriculum, ethics workshops, faculty development, faculty mentoring INTRODUCTION The elaboration of a standard of practice or code of ethics was an intrinsic part of the establishment of engineering as a profession [1] and as such remains one of its essential components. The ABET Engineering Criteria 2000 acknowledges the importance of including ethics in the training of an engineer. Item “f” of criterion 3, Program Outcomes and Assessment, stipulates that engineering graduates must demonstrate “an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.” Analogously, item “h” states that the graduates must demonstrate “the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context.” Criterion 4 indicates that the engineering curriculum should culminate in a major design experience that includes, among others, ethical, environmental, health and safety, social, and political considerations. Our experience has shown that an effective and efficient manner to meet this ABET EC 2000 ethics challenge is a program of ethics across the curriculum (EAC) integrated with an elective stand alone course in engineering ethics. In this paper we describe the tools and strategies used

at the University of Puerto Rico at Mayagüez (UPRM) to foster EAC and to instantiate its continuous improvement. Specifically, this paper reports on a two day activity held on December 5-6, 2003 at UPRM for the College of Engineering faculty. The first day employs a format we have used several times in the past. We have reported on these results in detail elsewhere [2]-[4], so we provide only a brief summery here. The activities of the second day were carried out for the first time on December 6th. We describe these in more detail and present the assessment results to date. In a follow-up paper, we plan to present on the long term results of this activity. By EAC we refer to the practice of incorporating ethics modules into mainstream engineering courses. We have found that when this is put into practice, engineering professors serve as effective ethics mentors for their students. The importance of ethics is emphasized by being an integral part of engineering courses, and not just a requirement of the curriculum. This complies with the integration aimed at by ABET in that ethics is integrated into the actual training of the engineering student and is not seen as something extraneous to this process. To have 100% of engineering faculty include ethics in their courses is not a feasible goal. Not only is it difficult and impractical to integrate ethics into every single engineering course, but, above all, many engineering professors, for various reasons, will resist such incorporation. However, we have found that by recruiting 10-15% of the engineering faculty to this practice, which is a feasible goal, the aim of reaching and impacting the overwhelming majority of engineering students can be accomplished. This effort, of course, is also bolstered by having available a stand-alone elective engineering ethics course taught by ethics professionals that students can take to satisfy certain elective requirements and by staging certain ethics activities for students, such as the ethics bowl competition, which includes engineering professors as well as professors from other disciplines as judges [5]. The key to the success of EAC is the empowerment of the engineering faculty in the area of ethics [6]. One of our chief tools in this regard is the ethics workshops we offer to engineering faculty, although this must be reinforced, augmented and sustained by follow-up activities, including advanced workshops, the elaboration of a tool kit that faculty can use to help prepare their ethics modules, the incorporation

1

José A. Cruz, University of Puerto Rico at Mayagüez, College of Business Administration, Mayagüez, PR 00681-9009 [email protected] William J. Frey, University of Puerto Rico at Mayagüez, Department of Humanities, Mayagüez, PR 00681-9264 [email protected] 3 Halley D. Sanchez, University of Puerto Rico at Mayagüez, Department of Humanities, Mayagüez, PR 00681-9264 [email protected] 4 Miguel A. Torres, University of Puerto Rico at Mayagüez, Mechanical Engineering, Mayagüez, PR 00681-9045 [email protected] 2

0-7803-8552-7/04/$20.00 © 2004 IEEE October 20 – 23, 2004, Savannah, GA 34th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference S1E-15

Session S1E of engineering faculty in other ethics activities for students (such as mentioned above), and continuing support, both personal and on-line, from our Center for Ethics in the Professions. We will detail the components of our workshops below. However, it should be mentioned that one of the secrets to these workshops (as well as the engineering ethics course) has been the employment of a series of tests which encapsulate theory and allow us to concentrate on decision making instead of straight ethical theory. Using a business metaphor, we call this approach “just in time theory.” WORKSHOP DAY ONE To aid in empowering engineering professors in ethics pedagogy, we have developed a two day workshop format. Day one, which can be taken independently from day two, constitutes our basic workshop in which we introduce engineering professors to EAC and to the use of short cases or ethics scenarios that can be integrated into their engineering courses [7]. Only engineering faculty who have not attended prior workshops participate in the first day activities. The second day builds on this foundation by delving further into ethical theory, providing updates on ethics integration projects, and fostering mentoring relations between engineering faculty experienced in EAC (veterans) and those new to EAC (rookies). In this section we summarize the first day’s activities. The next section will describe those of the second day. On the first day we introduce faculty to EAC through two different activities: a five-minute presentation and an Ethics Pre-test. Since the best way to introduce engineering faculty to EAC is to model it, we begin with an ethics integration exercise used to integrate ethics into Introduction to Computer classes. Participants are asked to take the point of view of their students, read several short scenarios, and answer three questions: • • •

Do you think this situation is common or realistic? Do you think this situation or activity is ethical? Do you think someone may disagree with you?

We discuss two scenarios with the participants. The first discussion is unstructured. Then, after presenting three ethics tests, we structure the discussion of the second scenario by having the participants frame their arguments in terms of these tests. After comparing the two discussions—the unstructured with the structured—participants agree that the second was more useful. This also accords with student reactions. The ethics tests, along with their relation to ethical theory, are summarized in Figure 1. After the Pre-test, we discuss the ethics tests as a useful way of quickly empowering students to integrate ethical consideration into their decision-making. The ethics tests provide students with an introductory foundation in practical ethics that we call the “moral minimum.” We make an analogy with self defense: a good introductory course in selfdefense does not need to turn students into black belts in karate. We claim the same for ethical self defense: the goal is

not to make students ethics experts but to equip them with tools and concepts for incorporating ethical considerations into everyday decisions and projects. As a part of the Pre-test activity, we introduce participants to 3 ethics tests: • REVERSIBILITY: Would I think this a good choice if I were among those affected by it? • PUBLICITY: Would I want or mind if this choice is published the newspaper? • HARM: Does this action cause harm? Does it do less harm than the alternatives? These three tests partially encapsulate three important ethical theories: • The reversibility test partially encapsulates deontology in that it employs the notion of respect that is important for establishing duties and rights. • The publicity test, when focused on publicly associating the agent with the action in question, embodies parts of virtue ethics. • The harm test partially encapsulates utilitarianism by prompting a quick inventory of the likely consequences and sorting them into harms and benefits. FIGURE 1 ETHICS TESTS

Engineering faculty gain further understanding and insight into the ethics tests by using them to evaluate and rank solution alternatives to ethics cases taken from engineering practice. We call this activity Gray Matters after the game used by Lockheed Martin to acquaint their employees with company policy on ethics [8]. In our version, participants, working in small groups, identify the best and worst solutions to an ethical problem and then justify their choices using the ethics tests. The highlight of day one is to have engineering professors write and discuss their own ethics scenarios. After a brief discussion of the mechanics of case writing, the participants, still in small groups, design short ethics cases for their classes [9]. These workshops usually produce 4 to 6 new cases. Table 1 provides a summary of the first day that pairs objectives with the activities that carry them out. TABLE 1 DAY ONE ACTIVITIES Objective Activity Introduce Ethics Across the Introductory Presentation & Pre-test Curriculum Learn to Use Ethics Tests Gray Matters: ethics scenarios with solution alternatives evaluated and ranked by participants Introduce Case Writing Modeling cases in Pre-test and Gray Matters Activities Short Presentation on Case Writing Write Cases Participants form teams, write cases, and debrief on cases

WORKSHOP DAY TWO The first day’s activities provide engineering faculty with a solid foundation in professional ethics that empowers them to introduce ethical considerations into their own classes. Nevertheless, we have added a second day consisting of


Session S1E follow-up activities for three reasons. First, engineering faculty, who are veterans of previous ethics activities, have asked us to do so. They have become interested in professional ethics and want to learn more. Generally, this has taken the form of a request for a workshop in ethical theory. Second, the follow-up activities respond to the continual improvement requirement of EC 2000. Continual improvement calls for the documentation and assessment of ongoing efforts to integrate ethics into the engineering curriculum. Third, the follow-up provides an excellent opportunity to build and maintain a community of faculty committed to EAC by forming mentoring relationships between faculty veterans (those experienced in EAC) and faculty rookies (those new to EAC). With these reasons in mind, we have designed the second day around three general activities: decapsulation (a process in which ethical theory is drawn from practical experience), documentation (where ethics veterans report on their EAC projects), and mentoring (where veterans help rookies write new EAC modules). The two days fit nicely together. In the first day we train the trainers. Then in the second day, veteran trainers mentor new trainers. EAC becomes a reality through an ever-expanding core of committed and empowered engineering professors. Day two objectives and activities are summarized in Table 2. TABLE 2 DAY TWO ACTIVITIES

Objectives

Activities

Introduce Ethical Theory to veterans and rookies (first day participants)

Decapsulation: Mountain Terrorist Debate—In theory presentations on Ethical Dilemma (see figure 2) Documentation: Veterans presentations on their EAC integration projects Mentoring: Veteran-rookie teams write new EAC Modules

Document and disseminate ongoing ethics integration projects Build mentoring relations between EAC “veterans” and “rookies”

strategy, then, was to expand the process by adding another step, which we call decapsulation because the intention is to draw out the theory encapsulated in the ethics tests. In summary we took the participants through the following steps: 1.

Participants identified ethical issues embedded in real world cases and saw how these were encapsulated into three tests: reversibility, harm/beneficence, and public/ownership. We used the Ethics Pre-test and Gray Matters exercises to carry this out in the first day.

2.

In the second day, we presented an ethical dilemma that offered diverging solutions embodying different ethical approaches or theories (see Figure 2). The dilemma showed dramatically how different ethical theories can lead to divergent solutions.

FIGURE 2 MOUNTAIN TERRORIST DILEMMA You are in a remote mountain village. A group of terrorists has lined up 20 people from the village; they plan on shooting them for collaborating with the enemy. Since you are not from the village, you will not be killed. Taking advantage of your position, you plead with the terrorists not to carry out their plan. Finally, you convince the leader that it is not necessary to kill all 20. He takes a gun, empties it of all its bullets except one, and then hands it to you. He has decided to kill only one villager to set an example to the rest. As an honored guest and outsider, you will decide who will be killed, and you will carry out the execution. The terrorists conclude with a warning; if you refuse to kill the villager, then they will revert back to the original plan of killing all 20. And if you try any “funny business,” they will kill you and then the 20 villagers [10]. What should you do?

3.

4.

Then, through role-playing, we debated three divergent solutions to the dilemma from three distinct perspectives based on ethical theories: deontology, utilitarianism, and virtue ethics. As the debate progressed, we brought the participants into the discussion and allowed them to carry on the debate from within the different theoretical perspectives. They began to learn ethical theory from the inside. Finally, we debriefed participants by giving a short, formal presentation of the main elements of the ethical theories used in the debate. Participants saw the relation between the ethics tests and the formal theoretical positions represented. They also saw the relation between the theories and the concrete positions taken in the dilemma debate.

I. Decapsulation

5.

Past experience has taught us an important lesson on presenting ethical theory. The usual procedure is to present the theory in the abstract, via lectures, and then attempt to apply it to the real world. But lectures alone do not provide guidance for applying theory to practice. Of course, engineering students and faculty readily understand the components of ethical theory when these are clearly presented. The problem is not one of understanding but of seeing the relevance of theory to experience. They find applying theory cumbersome and confusing. To overcome this theory-practice gap, we have developed a process by which engineering students and professors are able to see ethical theory in action. The ethics tests presented above, (reversibility, harm/beneficence, and publicity/ownership), encapsulate ethical theory by presenting it in short-hand, summarized form. But the tests themselves are not theory, and engineering faculty recognized this when they asked us for formal presentations on theory. Our

It is interesting to note that by lunchtime of the second day, the participants, in their informal conversation, were throwing around ethical terminology as though they had majored in philosophy. Figure 3 provides a schematic summary of the whole process.


Session S1E FIGURE 3 ENCAPSULATING AND DECAPSULATING ETHICAL THEORY Encapsulation into Theory based debate of Decapsulation into Ethics Tests using Pre- divergent solutions to Ethical Theories test and Gray Matters Mountain Terrorist Exercise Reversibility Don’t shoot the villager Deontology Harm/Beneficence Shoot one villager to Utilitarianism save nineteen Publicity Honor, Pride, and Virtue Ethics Courage require shooting a villager

II. Veteran Presentations Essential to ABET accreditation (including EC 2000) is what engineering faculty do between ABET visits. ABET 2000 has taken pains to change what over the years has become “business as usual”, namely, short periods of frantic activity (getting ready for ABET visits) interspersed with long periods of inertia (the years between visits). The idea of continual improvement represents the strategy for change because it calls upon engineering programs to document the results of efforts to implement and continually improve the programs set forth in the last ABET self study. The veteran presentations in our workshops provide much of this documentation. Veterans were asked to prepare reports on their EAC integration projects with three objectives in mind: (1) to show rookies that EAC is possible, (2) to show them how it is possible, and (3) to document EAC integration efforts for continual improvement. Six veterans presented: four from engineering, one from chemistry, and one from accounting. For the sake of brevity we will summarize three of these. A professor from chemistry described three different activities that she used to integrate ethics into her classes. First, she built ethics into the very concept of scientific research used in her classes by presenting science as a human activity with an inescapable ethical dimension. This was further elaborated in terms of ethical virtues such as honesty and integrity. Second, she used a comic strip from Calvin and Hobbes to encourage students to think about the ethical implications of cheating on exams. The strip portrays Calvin debating the pros and cons of cheating with his imaginary friend, Hobbes. (This module led to a lively discussion on the state of academic integrity at UPRM and ideas for its improvement.) Finally, she itemized the ethics cases on scientific fraud discussed in her classes. An industrial engineering professor discussed three activities to integrate ethics into her classes. She introduced engineering students to ethics by presenting the NSPE code. In design courses, she required her students to identify the social and ethical impacts of the designs they were developing. Finally, she integrated Gray Matters into her classes by having her students evaluate and rank solution alternatives to engineering ethics cases. An accounting professor presented her efforts to integrate ethical themes and cases. While successful, she encountered difficulties when presenting open-ended ethical problems to her students. Workshop participants brainstormed the

problem. Engineering faculty, who experience the same problem when moving from mathematical problems to openended design problems, offered several helpful suggestions. Carolyn Whitbeck illuminates this problem by exploring the analogy between ethics and design problems [11]. The following table offers a schematic summary of the veteran presentations. III. Veteran Mentoring By the afternoon of the second day, EAC rookies were ready to write their own ethics modules. Breakout groups were formed and veteran-rookie teams took about an hour to write their modules. The teams followed a seven-step model for composing modules: 1.

Identify a target course

2.

Within the target course, identify a unit in which to integrate an ethics module.

3.

Identify the goals of the ethics integration activity. We offered participants a list of EAC goals including ethical awareness, ethical evaluation, ethical integration, ethical prevention, and value realization. Elsewhere we discuss these skills as components of “ethical empowerment” [12].

4.

Identify outcomes in terms of which to measure success in achieving the goals cited in step three. This includes developing a documentation strategy such as using test scores, collecting formal and informal writing, and developing grading rubrics.

5.

Identify the means for bringing about the outcomes. Here we cited as examples the Pre-test and Gray Matters exercises used the previous day. Outcomes could be brought about by more common, general means such as lectures and class discussion.

6.

Participants were instructed to work out logistics. This includes how and when the exercise should be introduced, the time needed to carry it out, the advanced reading required, necessary props, and debriefing activities.

7.

The final step was to remember to keep things simple. We advised participants to start with straight-forward activities and build upon these. The goal is to start a process of continual improvement, not to achieve perfection the first time out.

After this, the teams briefly presented their modules to the rest of the participants. We have itemized and summarized some of the cases and modules produced during the two-day workshop in table 3.


Session S1E TABLE 3 CASES AND MODULES FROM THE MOST RECENT 2-DAY WORKSHOP Course Case / Module Description / Dept. INCI Topographic Plat Create a code of ethics to follow to 4001-2 fulfill the requirements for a plat INGE Bungee Jump Design and validate software for 3016 bungee jumping equipment. INEL Microprocessor Negligent programming and the 4206 Programming Techniques effects on power consumption INQU Process Control Safety Design conflicts and process control 5025 instrumentation for process safety INCI Construction Methods Conflicts among project constituents 4055 Game: “Who wins more” with regard to construction methods INCI “Field Engineer” Project owner hints project manager 4055 to bribe inspector and avoid delays INCI Gas Pipeline Accident Sanction inspector who certified pipeline project met regulations INCI Potable Water System and Contractor is asked by city officials to the Ethical Contractor ignore design problems discovered INQU Dilution of Pollution To avoid fines, a firm can dilute by Solution “Strategy” discharging far from the coast or process the high nutrient byproduct

TABLE 4 EVALUATION FORM QUESTIONS AND RESULTS 1. The objectives of the session were clearly stated.

5.0

2. The objectives proposed were met.

4.8

3. The activities presented were well organized.

4.8

4. The presenters were prepared.

5.0

5. The activities provided opportunity for participation.

4.8

6. Time was managed appropriately.

4.5

7. The topics presented were of relevance to my present work.

4.8

8. My expectations were satisfy.

4.8

9. There was a sense of closure at the end of the activities and retreat. 5.0 10. I will be able to put into practice the ideas presented.

4.8

11. This retreat was a valuable learning experience.

5.0

12. The materials provided were useful.

4.9

ACKNOWLEDGMENT We are grateful for sponsorship and logistical support from the System for the Evaluation of Education (SEED) office of the College of Engineering that made the December 2003 workshop a reality. REFERENCES

RESULTS AND ASSESSMENT The workshop (day one and day two) has been assessed in two ways. First, participants filled out an evaluation form. The survey questions and results are presented in Table 4; the scores range from one to five, where one represents “strongly disagree” and five “strongly agree”. Almost all of the participants expect to put into practice the ideas presented in the workshop, 24 out of 25. They also indicated that they will recommend the workshop to other colleagues, especially faculty members new to EAC. The evaluation form also left room for verbal comments, the most notable of which was that more time was need to study the cases presented and for EAC rookies to interact with EAC veterans. The second mode of assessment consists of an inventory of the cases and modules prepared by the participants. The results here are impressive as Table 3 shows. Six cases or modules were developed for six specific engineering courses. Three other modules were prepared for chemical engineering courses that can be used in a variety of courses. The next stage of assessment will consist of tracking the results of implementing these integration projects. Because follow-up is crucial, we plan on having workshop participants report in future workshops and in a special activity we are planning.

[1]

Davis, M., Thinking Like An Engineer: Studies in the Ethics of a Profession, Oxford University Press, N.Y. and Oxford, 1998, p. 9.

[2]

Frey, W. J., Sanchez, H. D., Cruz, J. A., “Ethics Across the Curriculum: An Effective Response to ABET 2000,” Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition: Session 0461.

[3]

Cruz, J. A., Frey, W. J. “An Effective Strategy for Integrating Ethics across the Curriculum in Engineering: An ABET 2000 Challenge”, Science and Engineering Ethics, 9(4): 543-568.

[4]

http://www.uprm.edu/ethics

[5]

Cruz-Cruz, J. A. “Report on Ethics Integration Projects Fall 2003 & Spring 2003”, www.iit.edu/departments/csep/eac/post_workshop/ FinalReport_JoseCruz.pdf (March 7, 2004).

[6]

Cruz, J. A., Frey, W. J., “Ethical Empowerment: An Ethics Module for Introduction to Computers”, Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition: Session 1520.

[7]

Reference 3, Cruz and Frey, 2003

[8]

Whitbeck, C., Ethics in Engineering Practice and Research, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, 1998, pp. 176-181.

[9]

Davis, M., Ethics and the University, Routledge, London and New York, 1999, pp. 172-174.

[10] Williams, B., “A Critique of Utilitarianism”, Ethics: History, Theory, and Contemporary Issues, 2nd Edition, eds. Steven M. Cahn and Peter Markie, Oxford, University Press, Oxford and New York, 2002, pp. 613-614. [11] Reference 8, Whitbeck, 1998, pp. 53-68. [12] Reference 3, Cruz and Frey, 2003, 546-548.
