Margaret Anne Pierce

Computer ethics: The role of personal, informal, and formal codes

Ethical decisions related to computer technology and computer use are subject to three primary influences: (1) the individuals own personal code (2) any informal code of ethical behavior that exists in the work place, and (3) exposure to formal codes of ethics. The relative importance of these codes, as well as factors influencing these codes, was explored in a nationwide survey of information system (IS) professionals. The implications of the findings are important to educators and employers in the development of acceptable ethical standards.

Attributional style as a predictor of success in a first computer science course

Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between attributions and performance in a computer science course. It was found that students with an optimistic attributional style performed better in a computer programming course than those students with a pessimistic attributional style. A second purpose was to examine the specific causal attributions stated by the students and to determine their relationship to course performance. It was found that course performance was related to specific causal attributions regarding ability.

Computer ethics: a model of the influences on the individual's ethical decision making

Ethical decision related to computer technology and computer use are made based upon ones personal code of ethics, the informal code that exists in the work place, and formal company codes. These codes as well as factors influencing these codes were explored in terms of a decision-making model. Practical implications of the model are important for educators, organizations, and personnel using computers and computer technology.

Computer-related judgements of computer professionals and students

While spectacular computer abuse cases make the evening news, many other unethical computer related actions are handled by internal actions, perhaps with little notice even by co-workers. These actions and the related discipline of them take time and resources and may lead to unfavorable reflections upon the organization. Rather than malicious in nature, some of these actions result from misjudgment or misunderstanding of expectations. According to Paradice (1990):

Computer ethics and social issue: an implementation model

Wotdd you like to plan and introduce systematic coverage of computer ethics and social issues throughout your undergraduate Computer Seienee(CS) etnrictdttm? If so, this article provides a review of the literature related to ~ should be taugh~ ~ the material shotdd b deliv~ and~ should teach the material. In additio~ an implementation model adapted tkom the information technology Memture is proposed to facilitate the incorporation of computer ethics and social issuesrnto the CS curriculum. The model is presented rdong with the important factors that StTeet its success. Moreover, the implementation model is applied to CS curriculum changes using att “innovation checklist” for educators. The checklist may be used to predict the succcss of proposed changes to the curricul~ assessthe pcnnanenee of the change% and evaluate the impact of the changes. Introduction Implementing the inclusion of computer ethics (CE) and social issues (N) into the computer science (CS) curriculum involves careful planning of ~ (will be taught), ~ (will it be delivered), and ~ (will teach) the topics. However, any innovation involves change. Unfortunately, not reeogrtizing the issues that need to be addressed in the change process otlen leads to half-hearted efforts, incomplete implementation of changes, or failure to make changes. Thus, many innovations fail because existing innovation literature to enhance the success of the project is not used. In this article, after a brief review of the literature related to the “wha

Algorithms from algebra

how, and who”, au information technology model is adapted to the implementation of a CFJSI compwnt m the CS Curnctthtm. A discussion of the phases of the model is followed by a checklist to enhance suecessfid acceptance of the “innovation”. What? How? and who? ~. What should be taught? Computer professionals understand the critical need for CE/SI coverage (Betts, 1994). For example, curriculum guidelines tlom the professional organizations such asthe Assock&n for Computing Machinery (ACM), Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) (Turner, 1991) and Computer Science Accreditation Commission (CSAC, 1994) call for CE/SI instruction in a CS undergraduate program Although the Computing Curricula 1991 qxat tiom the ACMAEEE task force lists suggested leeture topics amounting to about two to three weeks of inatrnetion (Tucker, 1991, 68-71), it is an incomplete gui& for CE/SI curriculum planning. An ACM-sponsored group, Project ImpacCS (M* 1995), is currently developing more specitic curriculum Permission to make digitdhafd copies of all or pan of thh msterial for persoml or classroom use is grsnted without fee provided that the copies arc not made or dktnbutad for profit or commercial advantage, !he c~Ynght notice, the title of the publication and its date appear, and notice la given that copyright is by permiaaion of the ACM, Inc. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to tista, rcquirea specific permission and/or fee. CQL ’96, Philadelphia PA USA @1996 ACM ()-89791-827-4/96/02. .

Judgements about Computer Ethics: Do Individual, Co-worker, and Company Judgements Differ? Do Company Codes Make a Difference

3.50 1 guidelines for teaehing CE/S~ and a complete report born Project ZmpactCS will be available during 1996 and will outline the essential CE/SI objectives which graduates of CS undergraduate programs are expected to attain. ~. How should the topics be taught? At present many institution% while meeting the “letter” of the ACMAEEE and CSAB guideline% do not meet the “spirit” of the recotnrnen&tions. Without clear CE/SI objectives, topics presented vary by individual instructor’s interests as well as external events such as breaking newspaper stories on cwmputer abuse or computer viruses on campus. Unfortunately, CS tketdty generally do not have the resources or expertise in CE/SI to do much more. Clearly, a more comprehensive, systematic approach is needed. The I&ratme suggests several formats for delivery of CE/SI in the CS curriculum. One strategy is to have a course required by the major devoted to CE/SI (Johnson, 1994b). Unfortunately, most . . . mhtutms already have a crowded CS curriculum; therefore, for many programs au additional required course is not a viable option. Moreover, a srngle course focusing only on CE/SI might have limited value because the stu&nts would not have the opportunity to apply what they learn to spede CS course content and might pereeive CE/SI as less important than the technical CS material. For these reasons, some programs prefer to integrate CE/SI into a series of existing courses. It has been stated that students pereeive the material as more relevant if it is taught in conjunction with CS content by faculty members trained m the discipline (Miller, 1988). Yet another fortnat is to include the topics m a capstone sotlware engineering course (Go199 1). Some scholars believe that a combination of these delivety methods is best (MartirL Dunlop, Maner, Shade, White, and Gotterbam, 1994). There are numerous sources of CE/SI resource materials. Although there are several excellent textbooks by Johnson (1 994a) and others (e.g., Kalhnan C%Citillo, 1993; Huff& Finho14 1994; Dejoie, Fowler, i% Paradiee, 1991), these are not widely available to all CS fkctdty. Wodcshops and sessions at national conferences are offered on CE/SI (e.g., ACM Special Interest Group for Computer Science Education Computer Conference, March 1995, in Nashville, TN). Moteover, a National Computer Ethics and Responsibilities Campaign sponsored by a consortium of computer companies, government otlcials, and advoeaey groups was launched “..to provide individuals and organizations with sample codes of ethics and other materials to promote responsible computer usage” (h&we, 1994). These materials am available on CompuServe and wills&n be available on the Intemet. However, these materiak and training sessions are not readily available to all CS f%xdty thetefote, caretid planning and organization of course materials is important. ~. Who shotddteach the CE/SI topics? Johnson (1994b) addresses this issue in a recent article which ap~ared in Computers and Society. She states that “Ideally, of course, philosophers would teach courses in computer ethics and social scientists would teach courses on computers and society” (Johnson, 1994b, 6). She also points out that a significant disadvantage to having the courses taught courses are less important than their technical courses. She suggests that CE/SItopics be dkmsaed in connection with appropriate technical topics in the CS courses to reinforce the computer ethics and computers and society courses. Johnson’s approach assumes that one or more courses are devoted to CE/SI. In their comments related to the Johnson article, Martin, Dunlop, Maner, Shade, White, and Gotterbam (1994) are divided in their opinions about who should teach CE/SI. Only Shade agrees with Johnson that philosophers and social scientists should teach the topics. Martin and Dunlop call for courses taught by a team containing computcz scientists as well as philosophers and social scientists. Maner and Ootterbam make the case that dedicated courses as well as topics rncluded m technical coumes should be taught by computer scientists. Summary. There is immense interest in CE/SI by CS educators and computer professionals. Reports flom Computing Currkmh 1991 (Tucker, 1991) and Project ImpacfC’S will help &fme the CE/SI topics and content objectives which should be included in the CS un&rgmd@c curriculum. Once defme~ however, these topics and content objectives must be organized into a reasonable teaching sequence (what), keyed to specific CS courses (how), and faculty must be identiled to teach the topics (who). Resources for case studies and reference materials include books, journal articles, popular press, and the Intemet resources. However, without the carefid &velopment of a plan and attention to the iniplementation of the plan a CE/SI component cannot be integrated into the curriculum. Figure 1, A Model of Implementation Unfreezing Change Refreezing A Model for Implementation Regardless of CE/SI curriculum decisions related to what will be taugh~ how it will IN taugh~ and who will teach, a change in status quo (“the way things are done”) is necessary. Using models and literature on “innovation” and implementing change is potentially usefid. Thus for successful implementation and incorporation of the changes in the CS curriculunL it is desirable for one to be aware of all the possible problems and have an implementation plan. Lewin (1952) presented the seminal change model which consists of three stages. The fmt is called “unfreezing”, i.e. getting people to recognize the need for change, “change”, i.e. the actual process of trying new behaviors and techniques, and “refkezing”, i.e. incoqxmating changes rnto cummt behavior. Mthough innovative at the time, it provides very little guidance for practice. Thus the specillc change process presented by Kwon and Zmud (1987) with some minor modifications shown in Figure 1, provides a more detailed guide to the change process. The model is used in this article to guide the implement of changes in the CS curriculum. While the steps are linear, the feedback loops indicate backtracking which is sometimes necessary to comet or mod@ the process. It should also be noted that these feedback loops may act in a positive or negative way (Kwon & Zmu~ 1987). I i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -----1 Initiation -> Adoption -~ Adaptation -> Acceptance -> Use -> Measurement-> Incorporation Change is a complex process and involves many factom, the most important of these fbxtors are enumerated in Table 1. They represent a synthesis of specflc factors to consider in implementing changes. The order of these factors does not indicate a level of importance. It is important to be aware of all these factors in each phase of the implementation. Obviously, the lis

Attributional Style as a Predictor of Success in College Mathematics.

The rules of algebra are rules about classes of objects. In many cases, algebra can be viewed as algorithmic in nature. By specifically defining the class for which a rule applies and then the general outline of the rule, the guesswork can be removed from the process. Thus the student has a clearer understanding of when and how a particular rule applies. The paper describes this approach to the solution of algebraic expressions and the simplification of rational expressions.