The Ethics Bowl at UPRM: A Capstone Experience for Engineering Ethics Students - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

becky
the ethics bowl at uprm a capstone experience for engineering ethics students n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
The Ethics Bowl at UPRM: A Capstone Experience for Engineering Ethics Students PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
The Ethics Bowl at UPRM: A Capstone Experience for Engineering Ethics Students

play fullscreen
1 / 32
Download Presentation
The Ethics Bowl at UPRM: A Capstone Experience for Engineering Ethics Students
131 Views
Download Presentation

The Ethics Bowl at UPRM: A Capstone Experience for Engineering Ethics Students

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  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

  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 Beltvs.Basic Self-Defense Skills

  5. Just in Time Theory

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

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

  8. Engineering Ethics Course • 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

  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)

  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

  13. Ethics Bowl Cases Cross-Reference

  14. Cases support local (PR) issues

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

  16. Preparing for the Ethics Bowl

  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

  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

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

  20. Round One T1 T2 • The moderator will announce the case for team one (T1) • The moderator will read the question to be answered (MQ) T1 T2 Team 1 Team 2 T1 T2 ? Judges MQ JX JY • T1: team members confer ( 1 minute ) • T1: responds to T2’s counter-presentation (3 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 ( 2 minutes ) • T1: a spokesperson will respond to MQ ( 5 minutes )

  21. Round One - cont’d T1 T2 • JX & JY: confer (briefly) • JX: asks a question of T1 T1 T2 Team 1 Team 2 T1 T2 Judges MQ ? ? JX JY • 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 ) • 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

  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

  23. Preparing the Judges • 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

  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

  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)

  27. Conclusion

  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

  29. Thank You!Questions? / Comments? / Suggestions?Similar Experiences? • 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 Ethicsvs.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”?