You teach an advanced course in engineering economics that has both graduate and undergraduate students. at the end of the semester the students turn in a group project that comprises 40% of their grade. one of the groups complains to you that only 4 out of the 5 members have done any work. the fifth student, the one who allegedly has done no work, is an undergraduate. the others are graduate students. you talk with the undergraduate who claimed that she tried to involve herself in the group activities but was excluded because she was an undergraduate. what should you do?
ADEM faculty have identified students not working together effectively in groups as a major concern. Do you find this a problem? What do you think are the causes of students not participating effectively in work groups?
Assume that the teacher in this case is committed to implementing the ADEM SOV. Which values are at play in this case? Design an action for the teacher that realizes these values?
Assume you are a member of this student work group. What can groups do to ensure that every member is able to participate fully? What do group members do to exclude individuals from participating?
You are studying frantically for your exam in a computer engineering course. it will be very difficult. but your roommate, who is also taking the course and has the exam tomorrow, seems unconcerned. when you ask why, he tells you that he has a copy of the exam. apparently, a group of students in the class found out how to hack into the professor’s computer and download the exam. (they installed a trojan horse called sub-seven into the professor’s computer which allows unauthorized access; then they searched through the professor’s files, found the exam and downloaded it.) your roommate has the exam in his hand and asks you if you would like to look at it. what should you do?
A group of students in a computer ethics class created a survey that asked students if they would avail themselves of exams obtained through means such as that described in the scenario above. Sixty percent of the respondents said that they would. Compare this to the value commitments expressed in the ADEM SOV? Is there a gap between aspiration and behavior? What can be done to reduce this gap?
Suppose you took the exam. Would this have any long term effects on your character? Would acting dishonestly this time make it easier to do so in the future?
Suppose you wish to uphold standards of academic integrity in this case and not take the exam. Should you turn your roommate in to the teacher? Would keeping this exam theft a secret undermine any of the UPRM ADEM values? If so, which ones?
You have now discussed some or all of the above cases in terms of the ADEM Statement of Values. What do you think are the strengths of this document? What are its weaknesses? Do you recommend any changes? What are these?
Sources for cases
Case 1 has been developed by William Frey, Chuck Huff, and José Cruz for their book, Good Computing: A Virtue Approach to Computer Ethics. This book is currently in draft stage and is under contract with Jones and Bartlett Publishing Company.
Cases 2 and 3 were developed by UPRM faculty teams from the College of Engineering during workshops held for the ABET 2001 Steering Committee and the Department of Industrial Engineering. These workshops took place April 6, 2001 and May 14, 2001.
Case 4 has been modified from “The Plagiarism Detector” written by Moshe Kam. It can be found at the beginning of the ethics chapter in Practical Engineering Design, edited by Maja Bystrom and Bruce Eisenstein.Moshe Kam. “The Plagiarism Detector”, in Practical Engineering Design, edited by Maja Bystrom and Bruce Eisenstein. Boca Raton, FLA: CFC Press, 2005: 27-28.
Assessment tools
Ethics across the curriculum matrix
This table will help you document your class discussion of the ADEM Statement of Values.
Muddy point exercise
Clicking on this media file will open a word format for the Muddiest Point Exercise. Students are invited to discuss the strongest and weakest facets of the ADEM Statement of Values.
Module assessment form
Clicking on this media file will open a general module assessment form taken from Michael Davis' IIT EAC workshop. This form will help you assess the SOV activity as well as other EAC modules.
This presentation is composed of slides previously given before the aacsb, adem faculty at uprm, and material published by the authors in technology and society magazine. (see bibliography below)
Bibliography
Lynn Sharp Paine (1994) "Managing for Organizational Integrity," in Harvard business review, March-April: 106-117
Gary R. Weaver and Linda Klebe Trevino (1999) "Compliance and Values Oriented Ethics Programs: Influences on Employees' Attitudes and Behavior," in Business Ethics Ethics Quarterly 9(2): 315-335
Stuart C. Gilman (2003) "Government Ethics: If Only Angels Were to Govern," in Professioinal Ethics, edited by Neil R. Luebke in Ph Kappa Phi Forum, Spring 2003: 29-33.
Stephen H. Unger (1994) Controlling Technology: Ethics and the Responsible Engineer, 2nd Edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons: 106-135.
"Federal Sentencing Guidelines--Sentencing of Organizations," in Ethical Theory and Business, 5th Edition, edited by Tom L Beauchamp and Norman E. Bowie, New Jersey: Prentice Hall: 182-187. This article was reprinted with permission from The United States Law Week, Vol. 50 pp. 4226-29 (March 26, 1991) (Bureau of National Afairs, Inc.
