1. The Ethics Bowl at UPRM: A Capstone Experience for Engineering Ethics Students William J. Frey, Halley D. Sanchez & José A. Cruz Center for Ethics in the Professions University of Puerto Rico at Mayagüez February 28, 2004 APPE - Cincinnati William J. Frey, Halley D. Sanchez & José A. Cruz Center for Ethics in the Professions University of Puerto Rico at Mayagüez February 28, 2004 APPE - Cincinnati

2. Our Engineering Ethics Course is not a theoretical ethics course, but a true practical and professional ethics course

3. Emphasis on Ethical Decision Making Skills

4. Black Belt vs. Basic Self-Defense Skills

5. Just in Time Theory

6. Three Tests Harm Harm Reversibility Reversibility Publicity/Ownership Publicity/Ownership Harm Harm Reversibility Reversibility Publicity/Ownership Publicity/Ownership

7. Tests encapsulate fundamental ethical theories Harm – utilitarian/consequentialism Harm – utilitarian/consequentialism Reversibility – Deontology Reversibility – Deontology Publicity/Ownership – Virtue Ethics Publicity/Ownership – Virtue Ethics Harm – utilitarian/consequentialism Harm – utilitarian/consequentialism Reversibility – Deontology Reversibility – Deontology Publicity/Ownership – Virtue Ethics Publicity/Ownership – Virtue Ethics

8. Engineering Ethics Course Basic Ethical Self-Defense Basic Ethical Self-Defense Hands on Hands on Communication skills Communication skills Team work Team work Basic Ethical Self-Defense Basic Ethical Self-Defense Hands on Hands on Communication skills Communication skills Team work Team work

9. Ethics Bowl highlights all these features

10. What we wish to share … How? When? Why? – EB emerges in EE How? When? Why? – EB emerges in EE Preparing for the competition in a course Preparing for the competition in a course Quick overview of the EB Experience Quick overview of the EB Experience Students Students Judges Judges Assessment Assessment How? When? Why? – EB emerges in EE How? When? Why? – EB emerges in EE Preparing for the competition in a course Preparing for the competition in a course Quick overview of the EB Experience Quick overview of the EB Experience Students Students Judges Judges Assessment Assessment

11. How? When? Why? the Ethics Bowl emerges in Engineering Ethics at UPRM We sought use for the pool of cases developed in workshops We sought use for the pool of cases developed in workshops Our participation in Ethics Bowls at APPE leads to the idea of running a similar but smaller competition at UPRM Our participation in Ethics Bowls at APPE leads to the idea of running a similar but smaller competition at UPRM Robert Ladenson at IIT suggested that we introduce the Ethics Bowl into UPRM ethics classes Robert Ladenson at IIT suggested that we introduce the Ethics Bowl into UPRM ethics classes Deciding Factor: through careful case selection, we could cover the full range of topics of engineering ethics Deciding Factor: through careful case selection, we could cover the full range of topics of engineering ethics Added Bonus: We can assess our outcomes by student performance on ethics questions in licensing exams (BER) Added Bonus: We can assess our outcomes by student performance on ethics questions in licensing exams (BER) We sought use for the pool of cases developed in workshops We sought use for the pool of cases developed in workshops Our participation in Ethics Bowls at APPE leads to the idea of running a similar but smaller competition at UPRM Our participation in Ethics Bowls at APPE leads to the idea of running a similar but smaller competition at UPRM Robert Ladenson at IIT suggested that we introduce the Ethics Bowl into UPRM ethics classes Robert Ladenson at IIT suggested that we introduce the Ethics Bowl into UPRM ethics classes Deciding Factor: through careful case selection, we could cover the full range of topics of engineering ethics Deciding Factor: through careful case selection, we could cover the full range of topics of engineering ethics Added Bonus: We can assess our outcomes by student performance on ethics questions in licensing exams (BER) Added Bonus: We can assess our outcomes by student performance on ethics questions in licensing exams (BER)

12. Identify Issues & Prepare Cases Issue Identification Workshops Issue Identification Workshops Practitioners present on the issues in the workplace Practitioners present on the issues in the workplace Business/Science/Engineering Faculty Workshops Business/Science/Engineering Faculty Workshops ABET Workshops (cases by engineering faculty) ABET Workshops (cases by engineering faculty) Textbooks & Literature Textbooks & Literature News Media News Media Surveys, statistics and similar reports Surveys, statistics and similar reports Mind the Gap Survey (McGinn, S&EE, Oct. 2003) Mind the Gap Survey (McGinn, S&EE, Oct. 2003) Students & Peers Students & Peers Issue Identification Workshops Issue Identification Workshops Practitioners present on the issues in the workplace Practitioners present on the issues in the workplace Business/Science/Engineering Faculty Workshops Business/Science/Engineering Faculty Workshops ABET Workshops (cases by engineering faculty) ABET Workshops (cases by engineering faculty) Textbooks & Literature Textbooks & Literature News Media News Media Surveys, statistics and similar reports Surveys, statistics and similar reports Mind the Gap Survey (McGinn, S&EE, Oct. 2003) Mind the Gap Survey (McGinn, S&EE, Oct. 2003) Students & Peers Students & Peers

13. Ethics Bowl Cases Cross-Reference Topic/ Issue UPRM Ethics Cases NSPE BER Cases Confidentiality Peer Review/Confidentiality Agreements 96-8 Conflict of Interest Expert Witness Case Inkjet Cartridge Case Participation in Protest Action as Part of a Political Campaign 84-6 Objectivity of Engineer Retained as Expert 85-4 Environmental Concerns Inkjet Cartridge Case Public WelfareHazardous Waste 92-6 Product Liability Pacemaker Case Signing of Drawings by Engineer in Industry 88-5 Safety and Health Pacemaker Case Public WelfareHazardous Waste 92-6

14. Cases support local (PR) issues Cases support local (PR) issues Topic/Source of Case UPRM Ethics Cases NSPE BER Cases Women in Engineering Japanese Engineer Case Engineers as Expert Witnesses Expert Witness Case Objectivity of Engineer Retained as Expert, 85-4 Public Criticism by an Engineer Japanese Engineer Case Pacemaker Case Participation in Protest Action as Part of a Political Campaign 84-6 Questionable Practices in Engineering in PR Inserting Change Orders Case Expert Witness Case Signing off on documents prepared by others Blueprints Case Use of CADD System 90-6 Certification of Work Performed by Technician 91-8 Performing within area of competence Blueprints Case Use of CADD System 90-6 Certification of Work Performed by Tech. 91-8

15. Building the Foundation: Learning Outcomes Skills Skills Ethical Awareness Ethical Awareness Ethical Evaluation Ethical Evaluation De-capsulation (practice to theory) De-capsulation (practice to theory) Ethical Integration Ethical Integration Group/Teamwork Skills Group/Teamwork Skills Communications Skills Communications Skills Skills Skills Ethical Awareness Ethical Awareness Ethical Evaluation Ethical Evaluation De-capsulation (practice to theory) De-capsulation (practice to theory) Ethical Integration Ethical Integration Group/Teamwork Skills Group/Teamwork Skills Communications Skills Communications Skills

16. Preparing for the Ethics Bowl SkillActivity/Exercise Ethical Awareness Watch Your Language! Ethical Evaluation (Introduce and Practice Ethics Tests) Engineering Ethics Pre-Test Gray Matters in Engineering De-capsulation (Practice to Theory) Debating Mt. Terrorist Scenario Ethical Integration (Ethical considerations guide DM) Midterm Exam: Essay on Scenario Teamwork & Responsibility (goals, obstacles, participation) EB Team Self-Evaluation Process Communication Skills (engineers as ethics advocates) Scenario Dramatizations

17. Engineering Topics/Activities Defining Activities Defining Activities Class definition of ethics Class definition of ethics Class definition of engineering (science, art, design, business, technology, math) Class definition of engineering (science, art, design, business, technology, math) Preparatory Modules Preparatory Modules Pre-test (issues and ethics tests) Pre-test (issues and ethics tests) Gray Matters (evaluating and ranking solutions in terms of ethics tests) Gray Matters (evaluating and ranking solutions in terms of ethics tests) Integration Integration Making and defending decision in essays Making and defending decision in essays Professional Ethics Professional Ethics Students draft their own codes to challenge the CIAPR code of ethics Students draft their own codes to challenge the CIAPR code of ethics Ethical Foundations of CIAPR Code Ethical Foundations of CIAPR Code Ethics Bowl Ethics Bowl Ethics Bowl Debriefing Ethics Bowl Debriefing Defining Activities Defining Activities Class definition of ethics Class definition of ethics Class definition of engineering (science, art, design, business, technology, math) Class definition of engineering (science, art, design, business, technology, math) Preparatory Modules Preparatory Modules Pre-test (issues and ethics tests) Pre-test (issues and ethics tests) Gray Matters (evaluating and ranking solutions in terms of ethics tests) Gray Matters (evaluating and ranking solutions in terms of ethics tests) Integration Integration Making and defending decision in essays Making and defending decision in essays Professional Ethics Professional Ethics Students draft their own codes to challenge the CIAPR code of ethics Students draft their own codes to challenge the CIAPR code of ethics Ethical Foundations of CIAPR Code Ethical Foundations of CIAPR Code Ethics Bowl Ethics Bowl Ethics Bowl Debriefing Ethics Bowl Debriefing

18. Covering the Issues Students prepare summaries of Ethics Bowl Cases Students prepare summaries of Ethics Bowl Cases 9 decision scenarios 9 decision scenarios 6 NSPE BER cases 6 NSPE BER cases Summaries: Team Position/Best Counter- Argument/Response to Best Counter-Argument Summaries: Team Position/Best Counter- Argument/Response to Best Counter-Argument Turn in before competition Turn in before competition The teams, judges or moderators will not know in advance which of the cases will be utilized during the competitions or what the moderator questions will be The teams, judges or moderators will not know in advance which of the cases will be utilized during the competitions or what the moderator questions will be Students prepare summaries of Ethics Bowl Cases Students prepare summaries of Ethics Bowl Cases 9 decision scenarios 9 decision scenarios 6 NSPE BER cases 6 NSPE BER cases Summaries: Team Position/Best Counter- Argument/Response to Best Counter-Argument Summaries: Team Position/Best Counter- Argument/Response to Best Counter-Argument Turn in before competition Turn in before competition The teams, judges or moderators will not know in advance which of the cases will be utilized during the competitions or what the moderator questions will be The teams, judges or moderators will not know in advance which of the cases will be utilized during the competitions or what the moderator questions will be

19. Accommodating the Competition to the Classroom… For the Engineering Ethics Class

20. The moderator will announce the case for team one (T1) The moderator will announce the case for team one (T1) The moderator will read the question to be answered (MQ) The moderator will read the question to be answered (MQ) The moderator will announce the case for team one (T1) The moderator will announce the case for team one (T1) The moderator will read the question to be answered (MQ) The moderator will read the question to be answered (MQ) Round One Team 1 Team 2 Judges MQ ? T1 T2 JXJY T1: team members confer ( 2 minutes ) T1: team members confer ( 2 minutes ) T1: a spokesperson will respond to MQ ( 5 minutes ) T1: a spokesperson will respond to MQ ( 5 minutes ) T1: team members confer ( 2 minutes ) T1: team members confer ( 2 minutes ) T1: a spokesperson will respond to MQ ( 5 minutes ) T1: a spokesperson will respond to MQ ( 5 minutes ) T2: the opposing team members confer ( 2 minutes ) T2: the opposing team members confer ( 2 minutes ) T2: a spokesperson will counter-present ( 5 minutes ) T2: a spokesperson will counter-present ( 5 minutes ) It may include the posing of a question to T1. It may include the posing of a question to T1. T1: team members confer ( 1 minute ) T1: team members confer ( 1 minute ) T1: responds to T2s counter-presentation (3 minutes ) T1: responds to T2s counter-presentation (3 minutes ) T1: team members confer ( 1 minute ) T1: team members confer ( 1 minute ) T1: responds to T2s counter-presentation (3 minutes ) T1: responds to T2s counter-presentation (3 minutes )

21. JX & JY: confer (briefly) JX & JY: confer (briefly) JX: asks a question of T1 JX: asks a question of T1 JX & JY: confer (briefly) JX & JY: confer (briefly) JX: asks a question of T1 JX: asks a question of T1 Round One - contd Team 1 Team 2 Judges MQ T1 T2 JXJY ? T1: team members confer ( 1 minute ) T1: team members confer ( 1 minute ) T1: team responds to question by JX ( 3 minutes ) T1: team responds to question by JX ( 3 minutes ) T1: team members confer ( 1 minute ) T1: team members confer ( 1 minute ) T1: team responds to question by JX ( 3 minutes ) T1: team responds to question by JX ( 3 minutes ) JY: asks a question of T1 JY: asks a question of T1 T1: team members confer ( 1 minute ) T1: team members confer ( 1 minute ) JY: asks a question of T1 JY: asks a question of T1 T1: team members confer ( 1 minute ) T1: team members confer ( 1 minute ) T1: team responds to question by JY ( 3 minutes ) T1: team responds to question by JY ( 3 minutes ) JX/JY: may ask follow-up questions JX/JY: may ask follow-up questions T1: team responds to question by JY ( 3 minutes ) T1: team responds to question by JY ( 3 minutes ) JX/JY: may ask follow-up questions JX/JY: may ask follow-up questions ? Total time for Q&A with judges should not exceed 15 minutes Total time for Q&A with judges should not exceed 15 minutes JX/JY: will complete score sheets independently JX/JY: will complete score sheets independently Total time for Q&A with judges should not exceed 15 minutes Total time for Q&A with judges should not exceed 15 minutes JX/JY: will complete score sheets independently JX/JY: will complete score sheets independently

22. Judge Selection Goals Select judges to simulate the interdisciplinary audience students will face in the workplace Select judges to simulate the interdisciplinary audience students will face in the workplace Provide students with feedback Provide students with feedback Interdisciplinary judge teams represent code stakeholders (public, client, peer, profession) Interdisciplinary judge teams represent code stakeholders (public, client, peer, profession) Provide ethics teacher with feedback Provide ethics teacher with feedback Issues that need to be covered Issues that need to be covered How convincing are student arguments to non-ethicists How convincing are student arguments to non-ethicists To expose faculty (H & E) to the ethical issues that arise in engineering practice To expose faculty (H & E) to the ethical issues that arise in engineering practice Select judges to simulate the interdisciplinary audience students will face in the workplace Select judges to simulate the interdisciplinary audience students will face in the workplace Provide students with feedback Provide students with feedback Interdisciplinary judge teams represent code stakeholders (public, client, peer, profession) Interdisciplinary judge teams represent code stakeholders (public, client, peer, profession) Provide ethics teacher with feedback Provide ethics teacher with feedback Issues that need to be covered Issues that need to be covered How convincing are student arguments to non-ethicists How convincing are student arguments to non-ethicists To expose faculty (H & E) to the ethical issues that arise in engineering practice To expose faculty (H & E) to the ethical issues that arise in engineering practice

23. Preparing the Judges Judge Packet Judge Packet Rules and Procedures Rules and Procedures Ethics Tests Guidelines Ethics Tests Guidelines Cases Cases Scoring Criteria and Scoring Sheet Scoring Criteria and Scoring Sheet Judge Packet Judge Packet Rules and Procedures Rules and Procedures Ethics Tests Guidelines Ethics Tests Guidelines Cases Cases Scoring Criteria and Scoring Sheet Scoring Criteria and Scoring Sheet

24. Assessment: Feedback in lieu of Grading Ethics Bowl is ideal for providing students feedback on ethics skills Ethics Bowl is ideal for providing students feedback on ethics skills Judges employ different interpretations of criteria (just as students will encounter different standards in real world) Judges employ different interpretations of criteria (just as students will encounter different standards in real world) Competing teams challenge one another and provide one another feedback Competing teams challenge one another and provide one another feedback Students use feedback received in EB to write an in-depth case study analysis Students use feedback received in EB to write an in-depth case study analysis Students respond to judges comments and competitors arguments in a follow-up report and self-evaluation Students respond to judges comments and competitors arguments in a follow-up report and self-evaluation Professor fills out a rubric giving students feedback on decision- making and use of tests; students respond to rubric in final report Professor fills out a rubric giving students feedback on decision- making and use of tests; students respond to rubric in final report Ethics Bowl is ideal for providing students feedback on ethics skills Ethics Bowl is ideal for providing students feedback on ethics skills Judges employ different interpretations of criteria (just as students will encounter different standards in real world) Judges employ different interpretations of criteria (just as students will encounter different standards in real world) Competing teams challenge one another and provide one another feedback Competing teams challenge one another and provide one another feedback Students use feedback received in EB to write an in-depth case study analysis Students use feedback received in EB to write an in-depth case study analysis Students respond to judges comments and competitors arguments in a follow-up report and self-evaluation Students respond to judges comments and competitors arguments in a follow-up report and self-evaluation Professor fills out a rubric giving students feedback on decision- making and use of tests; students respond to rubric in final report Professor fills out a rubric giving students feedback on decision- making and use of tests; students respond to rubric in final report

25. Formal Debriefing on Ethics Bowl Groups select one of the two ethics bowl cases they defended for final in-depth case study Groups select one of the two ethics bowl cases they defended for final in-depth case study Workshops are held where groups prepare… Workshops are held where groups prepare… Stakeholder Tables Stakeholder Tables Options for resolving ethical disagreements Options for resolving ethical disagreements Problem Classification Tables Problem Classification Tables Self-Evaluation Preparation Workshops Self-Evaluation Preparation Workshops Groups select one of the two ethics bowl cases they defended for final in-depth case study Groups select one of the two ethics bowl cases they defended for final in-depth case study Workshops are held where groups prepare… Workshops are held where groups prepare… Stakeholder Tables Stakeholder Tables Options for resolving ethical disagreements Options for resolving ethical disagreements Problem Classification Tables Problem Classification Tables Self-Evaluation Preparation Workshops Self-Evaluation Preparation Workshops

26. Formal Debriefing on Ethics Bowl Students prepare group self-evaluations Students prepare group self-evaluations Group Goals with Modifications Group Goals with Modifications Success in Meeting Goals Success in Meeting Goals Obstacles Encountered and Modes of Response Obstacles Encountered and Modes of Response Individual Member Evaluations (Students rate each other in terms of percent of contribution) Individual Member Evaluations (Students rate each other in terms of percent of contribution) Students prepare group self-evaluations Students prepare group self-evaluations Group Goals with Modifications Group Goals with Modifications Success in Meeting Goals Success in Meeting Goals Obstacles Encountered and Modes of Response Obstacles Encountered and Modes of Response Individual Member Evaluations (Students rate each other in terms of percent of contribution) Individual Member Evaluations (Students rate each other in terms of percent of contribution)

27. ConclusionConclusion

28. Ethics Bowl in the classroom incorporates many key features stressed by accreditation agencies (ABET et al.) Basic Ethical Self-Defense Basic Ethical Self-Defense Hands on activities Hands on activities Communication skills Communication skills Critical thinking skills Critical thinking skills Teamwork Teamwork Basic Ethical Self-Defense Basic Ethical Self-Defense Hands on activities Hands on activities Communication skills Communication skills Critical thinking skills Critical thinking skills Teamwork Teamwork

29. Thank You! Questions? / Comments? / Suggestions? Similar Experiences? If you try something like this, let us know about the results: If you try something like this, let us know about the results: William J. Frey – wfrey@uprm.edu Halley D. Sanchez – hsanchez@uprm.edu José A. Cruz – jacruz@uprm.edu Visit: www.uprm.edu/ethics If you try something like this, let us know about the results: If you try something like this, let us know about the results: William J. Frey – wfrey@uprm.edu Halley D. Sanchez – hsanchez@uprm.edu José A. Cruz – jacruz@uprm.edu Visit: www.uprm.edu/ethics

30. Possible Brainstorming Point: Lesson Learned? Default Ethics vs. Using Tests (or Theories)

31. What might this be telling us about how persons learn and use ethical tests/theories? What might this be telling us about moral imagination? Perhaps the tests are not just theory?

32. What might this be telling us about the relationship between what is called ethics and practical and professional ethics?