Ethics
The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) and the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) have developed codes of ethics for software engineers. The ACM policy is here, and the IEEE policy is here. It is important for all students graduating with a degree in Computer Science to have an understanding of these ethical frameworks.
You will explore ethical issues in CS individually in a directed paraphrase (see below).
Directed Paraphrase
Computer professionals should be able to identify and succinctly state ethical issues related to computing. For this activity, we will practice that skill within our teams. Specifically, each team will identify a risk or ethical issue in their current project (for example, a FERPA violation, a data security issue, etc.). Each team will then choose an article together that has a similar situation. You are encouraged to use AI to help you find this article. In your advisor meeting in Sprint 4, you will come prepared to paraphrase this article. Each individual will paraphrase the article but from a unique perspective. Choose each team member's perspective, for example the CEO of the company, the victim, the software engineer, etc. As part of your paraphrase, be sure you identify an ACM/IEEE/Michal Davis prinicple that was violated. Each teammate should identify a different violated principle. We will then have some lively discussion. The format is a directed paraphrase:
- Using plain language:
- paraphrase (state in your own words) the main points of the article but from a unique perspective;
- identify which ACM/IEEE Ethics Principles were violated that led to the events in the article;
- This should take approximately three minutes.
- Your goal is for your teammates and advisor to gain a quick understanding of the ethical issue(s) and possible solutions, but also from a unique perspective.
- Obviously in three minutes you can't cover everything discussed in the article. What is the primary issue? What is the most compelling example?
- If needed, you may have an index card or half page to remind you what you want to say. But do not just read this verbatim. You should be able to discuss these types of issues informally. Maybe practice with a friend or relative.
- We will then have group discussion about how different behaviors could have changed the outcome, and how this relates back to your project.
It's likely you have never done a directed paraphrase before. During this sprint team/advisor meeting, your advisor will do a directed paraphrase of a case study on the Denver International Airport baggage handling system, to give you an idea what we want. For your paraphrase, we recommend that you first read the entire article, possibly taking notes. Then select the issues and examples you want to discuss. You may want to write out what you plan to say. But as mentioned above, you should not just read from the paper. Remember, these are issues we should all be interested in. So just tell us what you learned as clearly as you can.
Students should coordinate within their teams to ensure everyone covers a different perspective and violation of the article. You will find an article of your choice to paraphrase.
Rubric
| Timing Target: 3 minutes |
+ 1.0 point 2.45 - 3:15 minutes |
+ 0.5 point 2:30 - 2:45 or 3:15 - 3:30 minutes |
+ 0.0 points < 2:30 or > 3:30 minutes |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Content - Events Summary |
+ 1.5 points Thorough summary, all points are relevant, no tangents |
+ 0.75 point Mostly accurate, some info/details missing, some short tangents |
+ 0.0 points Missing many key points, facts are incorrect, many pieces of irrelevant information added |
|
| Content - Ethics Summary |
+ 1.5 points At least one specific ACM/IEEE/MD Test sub-principle selected AND is relevant to article |
+ 0.75 point At least one ACM/IEEE/MD Test broad category selected (not specific) OR At least one specific ACM/IEEE/MD Test sub-principle selected BUT is NOT relevant to article |
+ 0.0 points No ACM/IEEE/MD Test broad category selected |
|
| Clarity & Delivery | + 1.0 point Clearly & smoothly delivered, connections are clearly made between points, little to no fillers or pauses, stay in persona perspective |
+ 0.5 point Some parts hard to follow, but mostly able to easily connect the dots, some fillers, few pauses, doesn't use persona perspective much |
+ 0.0 points Rambling, hard to follow, stumbling delivery, many pauses, filler words, no persona perspective |
