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 ► Reversibility ► Publicity/Ownership ► Harm ► Reversibility ► Publicity/Ownership

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

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

9. Ethics Bowl highlights all these features

10. What we wish to share … ► How? When? Why? – EB emerges in EE ► Preparing for the competition in a course ► Quick overview of the EB Experience ► Students ► Judges ► Assessment ► How? When? Why? – EB emerges in EE ► Preparing for the competition in a course ► Quick overview of the EB Experience ► Students ► Judges ► 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 ► 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 ► 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) ► 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 ► 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 ► 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  Practitioners present on the issues in the workplace ► Business/Science/Engineering Faculty Workshops ► ABET Workshops (cases by engineering faculty) ► Textbooks & Literature ► News Media ► Surveys, statistics and similar reports  “Mind the Gap” Survey (McGinn, S&EE, Oct. 2003) ► Students & Peers ► Issue Identification Workshops  Practitioners present on the issues in the workplace ► Business/Science/Engineering Faculty Workshops ► ABET Workshops (cases by engineering faculty) ► Textbooks & Literature ► News Media ► Surveys, statistics and similar reports  “Mind the Gap” Survey (McGinn, S&EE, Oct. 2003) ► 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 Welfare—Hazardous Waste 92-6 Product Liability Pacemaker Case Signing of Drawings by Engineer in Industry 88-5 Safety and Health Pacemaker Case Public Welfare—Hazardous 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  Ethical Awareness  Ethical Evaluation  De-capsulation (practice to theory)  Ethical Integration  Group/Teamwork Skills  Communications Skills ► Skills  Ethical Awareness  Ethical Evaluation  De-capsulation (practice to theory)  Ethical Integration  Group/Teamwork 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  Class definition of ethics  Class definition of engineering (science, art, design, business, technology, math) ► Preparatory Modules  Pre-test (issues and ethics tests)  Gray Matters (evaluating and ranking solutions in terms of ethics tests) ► Integration  Making and defending decision in essays ► Professional Ethics  Students draft their own codes to challenge the CIAPR code of ethics  Ethical Foundations of CIAPR Code ► Ethics Bowl ► Ethics Bowl Debriefing ► Defining Activities  Class definition of ethics  Class definition of engineering (science, art, design, business, technology, math) ► Preparatory Modules  Pre-test (issues and ethics tests)  Gray Matters (evaluating and ranking solutions in terms of ethics tests) ► Integration  Making and defending decision in essays ► Professional Ethics  Students draft their own codes to challenge the CIAPR code of ethics  Ethical Foundations of CIAPR Code ► Ethics Bowl ► Ethics Bowl Debriefing

18. Covering the Issues ► Students prepare summaries of Ethics Bowl Cases  9 decision scenarios  6 NSPE BER cases  Summaries: Team Position/Best Counter- Argument/Response to Best Counter-Argument  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 ► Students prepare summaries of Ethics Bowl Cases  9 decision scenarios  6 NSPE BER cases  Summaries: Team Position/Best Counter- Argument/Response to Best Counter-Argument  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

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 read the question to be answered (MQ) ► The moderator will announce the case for team one (T1) ► 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: a spokesperson will respond to MQ ( 5 minutes ) ► T1: team members confer ( 2 minutes ) ► T1: a spokesperson will respond to MQ ( 5 minutes ) ► T2: the opposing team members confer ( 2 minutes ) ► T2: a spokesperson will counter-present ( 5 minutes )  It may include the posing of a question to T1. ► T1: team members confer ( 1 minute ) ► T1: responds to T2’s counter-presentation (3 minutes ) ► T1: team members confer ( 1 minute ) ► T1: responds to T2’s counter-presentation (3 minutes )

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

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

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

24. Assessment: Feedback in lieu of Grading ► 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)  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 respond to judges’ comments and competitor’s 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 ► 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)  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 respond to judges’ comments and competitor’s 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

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

26. Formal Debriefing on Ethics Bowl ► Students prepare group self-evaluations  Group Goals with Modifications  Success in Meeting Goals  Obstacles Encountered and Modes of Response  Individual Member Evaluations (Students rate each other in terms of percent of contribution) ► Students prepare group self-evaluations  Group Goals with Modifications  Success in Meeting Goals  Obstacles Encountered and Modes of Response  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 ► Hands on activities ► Communication skills ► Critical thinking skills ► Teamwork ► Basic Ethical Self-Defense ► Hands on activities ► Communication skills ► Critical thinking skills ► 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”?