Introduction to Student Environment

Topic area Whistle-blowing
Target audience Undergraduates and graduates in any major.
Activity type Think-pair-share
Time required 50 minutes.
Attachments Worksheet: Scenario A
Worksheet: Scenario B
Additional materials
  1. Two scenarios
  2. Student handbook or similar reference.
Background needed to complete the assignment No skills required beyond a basic familiarity with the university environment.
References Guidelines for Engineers Dissenting on Ethical Grounds," IEEE Ethics Committee, The Institute, January 1997.
Last modified August 1998
Abstract:
Through small group and class discussion of two scenarios related to their college experience, students develop an appreciation of aspects of ethical dissent and its ramifications. The scenarios differ in their level of risk to the student and in the severity of the offense which triggers the whistle-blowing. Through class discussion directed by the instructor's questions, students come to understand that there are steps which must be taken in any ethical dissent and that the decision to launch an ethical dissent should be based on analysis of the risks to all stakeholders. In the second scenario, the students will be led to identify the steps of dissent on ethical grounds recommended by the IEEE.

Goals for the activity:
Introduce the concepts of whistle-blowing in a context that is familiar to the student.

Knowledge / skills / attitudes to be developed (behavioral objectives):
Identify the stakeholders and analyze the risks for each in situations that may lead to ethical dissent; recognize that there are many actions which can be taken in ethical dissent; differentiate between levels of risks in actions; appreciate the sequence of actions which might lead to whistle-blowing; appreciate the role of instituted procedures for ethical dissent.

Procedure:

  1. Ask students to read the section on cheating in the Student Handbook before class.
  2. Present Scenario A.
  3. Think-pair-share.
  4. Order the actions suggested in class discussion according to the level of risk to all stakeholders.
  5. Lead class discussion and ensure that important points have been covered.
  6. Present Scenario B.
  7. Think-pair-share with question, "What are the differences between Scenario A and Scenario B which might influence your response to the situation?"
  8. Lead class discussion and ensure that important points have been covered.
  9. Think-pair-share with remaining questions on Scenario B.
  10. Lead class discussion and ensure that important points have been covered.
  11. Discuss how the responses in class would correspond to the steps suggested in the "Guidelines for Engineers Dissenting on Ethical Grounds."
  12. Contrast the responses for Scenario A and Scenario B.

Assessing outcomes:
The comments and answers to discussion questions will reflect the students' knowledge of levels of risk and the methodology of approaching ethical dissent.

Additional remarks:
The type of cheating in the first scenario can be change according to the discipline of the students. For example, for electrical engineering majors, the example may be changing data in a laboratory notebook. If a significant portion of the class is not likely to become professional computer scientists or programmers, the assignment can be done without including suggested responses to the IEEE steps of dissent.

Author contact information:
Gerald Engel
Computer Science and Engineering
University of Connecticut at Stamford
Stamford, CT06901-2315
Fax: (203) 251-8431
E-mail: g.engel@compmail.com

Dewey Rundus
Computer Science and Engineering
University of South Florida
Tampa, FL 33620-5399
Fax: (813) 974-5456
E-mail: rundus@csee.usf.edu

Elise Turner
Computer Science Department
University of Maine
Orono, ME 04469-5752
Fax: (207) 581-4977
E-mail: eht@bronte.umcs.maine.edu

Page maintained by: kwb@csee.usf.edu