Facing the Challenges of Teaching IT Ethics Elizabeth V. Howard Miami University Middletown 4200 E. University Blvd. Middletown, OH 45042 USA 513-727-3286 howardev@muohio.edu ABSTRACT Faculty members teaching a discussion-intensive course in Information Technology ethics often face a number of challenges. In order to make the class effective, students must be sufficiently prepared to participate in class discussions. Students must feel comfortable and safe enough to openly share their opinions. Grading both discussion participation and papers can be daunting to those of us accustomed to objectively grading a tangible product, such as a program or a project. Finally, students must view the ethical scenarios as relevant to them and their careers. This paper describes techniques used in an introductory course in IT ethics to address these challenges. Categories and Subject Descriptors K.3.2 [Computers and Education]: Computer and Information Science Education ��� Computer Science Education General Terms Experimentation, Performance Keywords Ethics, Collaboration, Soft Skills, Communication Skills, Inclusiveness, Interactive Exercises 1. INTRODUCTION When I was assigned the responsibility of teaching the first section of an introductory course entitled ���Ethical Issues in Information Technology,��� my initial response was one of panic. Although I incorporate many activities involving soft skills, such as speaking, writing, listening, and group interaction within my technical courses [6, 7], I had never taught a writing, reading, and discussion-intensive course. The IT ethics course was scheduled for one evening a week ��� what would we talk about for nearly three hours at a time? While researching and preparing material for the course and in discussions with colleagues from the Computer Science & Systems Analysis department who had taught a junior-level computing ethics class, I determined that there were several challenges that I would face in this course. Some of the challenges reported in the literature include that students were not always prepared to fully participate in the class discussions [14, 5] and that some students suffer from ���free-riding��� and do not contribute to the class discussions [1]. If I expected my students to share their opinions in those discussions, I realized that I had to create a class dynamic that was comfortable and safe [10, 15]. Also, if I expected my students to be able to form and articulate their opinions, then the ethical issues and case studies had to be concrete and relevant [4, 13, 16]. While I am quite experienced in grading technical assignments, I was uncomfortable grading writing and discussion as is also reported in the literature [14, 12, 5]. In this paper, I will present the methods and activities that I used to address these challenges. 2. STUDENTS PREPARING FOR CLASS DISCUSSION For each new general topic, students completed a quiz covering the material (a quiz covered one chapter of the textbook). The purpose of the quizzes was to ensure that students have read the material and are prepared for class discussions on those topics (this is clearly stated in the course syllabus). The quiz questions were chosen from the review questions at the end of the chapter. Students were required to create two (2) sheets of notes and half the points of the quiz were based on having created those notes. The students were then permitted to use those notes during the quiz. Students were not permitted to simply photocopy parts of the textbook or other students��� notes. The quiz questions were short (one paragraph) essay questions whose answers required that the students had indeed read the textbook. Before each class (the class met once a week), students posted comments on an electronic discussion board as a part of a required ���discussion assignment.��� The number and type of comments differed with each assignment. For some discussion assignments, students read two to three different cases and posted a minimum of two comments per case on the discussion board. For other discussion assignments, students had to search for articles on a particular topic and post those articles. They also had to respond to two other articles that were posted. They could not post the same article that someone else had already posted. During the class session, each small group had to use the posted articles to make a list of pro points and a list of con points. Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. SIGITE'06, October 19���21, 2006, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. Copyright 2006 ACM 1-59593-521-5/06/0010...$5.00. 95

Participation in online and in-class discussion was weighted as 10% of the final grade. As Al Sanders [14] suggested, students were also required to cite their classmates in their position papers. Since 5% of the final grade was based the number of times a student was cited in their classmates��� papers, students realized that they had to be engaged in the material and participate in the discussions. 3. CREATING THE CLASS DYNAMIC In a course designed around class discussions, it was important to create an inclusive class dynamic where students were comfortable sharing their opinions. An inclusive classroom is one in which the ���instructor and students work together to create and sustain an environment in which everyone feels safe, supported, and encouraged to express her or his views and concerns��� [15]. One way to help create that trust, especially in a discussion- intensive course, is to establish agreed upon ground rules early in the class [15]. On the first day of the term, I used a technique known as ���Double Negatives��� or ���Double Reversal��� [8] to lead a class activity for developing discussion ground rules. I divided the class into small groups of 4-5 students. In each group, I asked them to brainstorm on ���what would make you uncomfortable participating in a class discussion?��� I brought the entire class back together and I asked each group to give me one example and I typed them so that everyone could see the list. I continued around the room until there were no more examples. I then reversed each of the statements. For example, one of the statements was ���when someone jumps in before you���re finished��� and the reverse of that is ���you must wait until the current speaker has finished before you begin speaking.��� This list of reversed statements became our rules for class discussions. Allowing students to fully participate in the development of class rules fosters inclusiveness and an effective learning environment [10, 15]. By using the students��� ideas, I have demonstrated that I respect their opinions, which, in turn may help them move to more complex ways of understanding [9]. Since the students were an integral part in creating the rules, the rules are not viewed as arbitrary and rigid rules thrust upon them. The class discussion rules generated by the Double Reversal activity did not include a few rules that I thought were important, such as ���the moderator (typically the instructor) may interrupt the discussion if the discussion has moved off topic.��� The rules are for the class and that includes both the students and the instructor. By adding rules that I think are important, it demonstrates that the class belongs to everyone ��� students and instructor. The course is designed to be discussion-intensive and students had to cite their classmates in their papers. To help the students become accustomed to taking notes while others are speaking, I asked members from the university���s office of student services to come and talk about note taking. They created a hands-on activity where the two staff members held a conversation in front of the class and then asked students about the conversation. It was especially effective in showing that it is much easier to take notes on a topic with which you are familiar than on an unknown topic. Providing students the opportunity to practice taking notes with ���topics that are not explosive or fearful are important for positive dialogue experiences��� [15] and adds to an inclusive class dynamic. At the end of the semester, students, in randomly assigned groups, created group projects on an ethical issue in IT. The initial requirement for the project was to write a verification report. Part of the requirements for the verification report included creating a set of criteria that the students suggested to evaluate the projects, their teammates��� contribution, and their own individual contribution. I then used these criteria to generate the grading rubric for projects and student contribution. Involving the students in the decision process further fostered the sense of inclusion in the class dynamic. 3.1 In-Class Discussions I used a variety of techniques for in-class discussions, both to incorporate different learning styles and to keep students interested for the full three hours. For some issues, where the class had already participated in an online discussion, I opened the discussion to the entire class. To introduce other large group discussions, I would show a video clip on the subject. Generally, the students voluntarily participated in the large group discussions with little prompting from me. Occasionally, a few students would dominate the discussion and I would intervene to ask students who had not had the opportunity to speak to share their opinion. Often I would divide the students into small groups, have them complete an activity, and then bring them together as a large group where each small group reported their results. Some of these small group activities included searching for the university���s rules of computing use, state laws on computer misuse, articles from various sources (such as a scholarly source, a newspaper, a counterculture site, corporation, individual), and articles for both the pro and con argument of a topic. For each of these activities, the small groups would answer a number of questions on the topic that they would share with the entire class. When I had invited guest speakers, the small group activity was to brainstorm on questions to ask the guests. As mentioned previously, before each class session, students participated in online discussions. Using online, large group, and small group discussions along with interactive activities, appealed to various learning and personality styles (extrovert, introvert, kinesthetic learners, aural learners, and visual learners). Using multiple modes of delivery of the material is a hallmark of the inclusive classroom [15]. 3.2 Grading Grading both papers and discussion participation can be daunting to those of us accustomed to objectively grading a tangible product, such as a program or a project. When designing a project or program assignment, many of us include a grading rubric where the requirements and the corresponding point values are clearly defined. Developing or adopting a scoring rubric for written essays forces an instructor to critically analyze what s/he is asking the students to write as well as provides the students with the knowledge of how they will be evaluated before they begin the assignment [12]. For grading position papers, I adopted a modified version of Sanders��� [14] ���7 Cs��� grading rubic that is based on seven categories all beginning with the letter C: 96