A Compressed Video Faculty Workshop on Ethics in Computer Science M.Dee Medley Department of Mathematics and Computer Science Augusta College Augusta, GA 30904 706-737-1672 dmedley@admin.ac.edu Introduction In June of 1994 I was lucky enough to be selected to participate in a National Science Foundation workshop on "Ethical and Professional Issues in Computer Science" that was held at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. One purpose of this workshop was for participants to have more ideas and methods for introducing this material into their regular courses, but another was to spread the word among computer science professors and others who teach courses that are related to these issues. The availability of the new GSAMS (Georgia Statewide Academic and Medical System) compressed video teleconferencing system in the state of Georgia plus the great need for work in the area of ethical issues and social impact in our curriculum suggested that a faculty workshop over GSAMS on these topics may be beneficial. I wrote a grant proposal for Augusta College Foundation funding for my time, books and other materials, and a small stipend for participants. This was granted and the program was offered in July and August, 1995. This paper describes this program and the way in which it incorporated this new technology for a faculty enhancement workshop. The Program The workshop consisted of eight two-and-a-half hour sessions during the summer. I recruited participants by sending letters announcing the program to the computer science departments of all of the two and four year colleges in the University System. The group that finally participated included one professor each at Georgia Southwestern College in Americus, North Georgia College in Dahlonega, Dekalb College in suburban Atlanta. and East Georgia College in Swainsboro. The classes were a combination of lectures, discussion, and brainstorming on ideas for how to add this material to the typical computer science class. At the end of the program each participant presented a module which included everything one would need in order to add work on ethical, social impact, or professional issues to a course they themselves teach. Possibly the biggest problem connected to this workshop was recruitment of participants. The GSAMS program coordinators publish a newsletter with reasonable frequency, but it is sent to GSAMS coordinators instead of teaching faculty. Each computer science department in the University System of Georgia received a letter describing the program, but letters of this type often do not find their way into the mailboxes of the most interested faculty. Since finding the names of all of the faculty members in each of these departments is a long and arduous process and the time was short, we relied mainly on these letters. There were other applicants who planned to participate but were prevented by the summer teaching schedule. This kind of program requires more time to set up and publicize than was available. Although we did have enough participants to make it successful several more would have been a positive addition to the workshop. The topics which I chose to include were taken mostly from the texts that I have used in teaching an ethics course to undergraduates. Privacy is an important issue and one which leads to a great many ideas for discussion, since it can be used to point out problems that a professional may encounter while working in the field of computer science and also to show the effects on society in general of the information easily available to the public about everyone. Professionalism and the kinds of responsibility accepted by programmers generated lively conversations. Accessibility from several aspects lent itself to two interesting afternoons with a guest and a video. Hacking and cracking is an ever-present worry, as is software ownership, and both of these are issues which should be discussed early in any curriculum. The readings for the course were prepared, printed, and sent to each of the participants along with an initial reading assignment. One problem that I encountered with this particular group was that everyone had very similar beliefs about the ethics of most of the situations we discussed. This meant that there was very little or no disagreement, and it made debates rather dull, since even if different people were assigned to argue opposing points, those who didn't believe in them were less than enthusiastic. I believe this is due to the small number of participants rather than to any difficulties arising from the use of the technology. A number of methods besides lecture and discussion or debate helped to keep things interesting during the program. For example, we had a young man who is severely handicapped come to talk about access issues involving the use of computers for disabled persons. A video describing a pilot project at George Washington University to involve more young minority women in the sciences helped to introduce other issues of access on the professional level. For the last session we decided to meet in person at a restaurant in Madison, Georgia, which seemed to be fairly centrally located. We discussed the work we had done throughout the program and this provided the opportunity to describe the modules designed by each participant in pleasant and relaxed surroundings. The group was highly interactive, again because it was composed of faculty members with a strong interest in the material. Two of the participants were somewhat less willing to offer their comments, and I handled this by asking specific questions of them and then soliciting further comments from the other participants. On a couple of occasions the conversation grew to the level of participants nearly interrupting each other to offer their ideas, but usually I acted as moderator and "called on" each participant in turn to speak. Some of the topics required multiple passes through the group, with new ideas cropping up frequently, but other topics were thoroughly covered before everyone had a chance to comment. In general the discussion was quite lively. If the groups at each location had been larger than one local conversation might have taken away from the general sharing, but on the other hand even more interaction might have occurred. In the final analysis I believe that the method I used, that of asking each site for comments and waiting for them to speak before going on to another participant, was very effective in bringing everyone into the conversation. The Medium Compressed video provides a truly interactive experience for each of the participants, and I believe that it is extremely well-suited to the kind of faculty development project which I conducted. It is particularly useful when discussion is expected to be heavy and continuous and this is certainly the case where ethical issues are a topic of discussion among faculty members. Several major issues that must be considered in planning a program using compressed video are how to use the medium effectively, how to conduct such a class, how to plan for it, how to make presentations, and methods for involving the participants in an active way. Compressed video allows fully interactive audio and video communication among geographically separate sites. The system in use in the state of Georgia is fairly high quality and allows participants very clear images of everything from computer screens to hand-written notes. A number of features are included, plus some amenities are available to assist with other forms of communication. Each of the GSAMS classrooms in Georgia is fitted with a telephone and fax machine which can also be used for duplicating documents. Cameras can be set to view members of the class using a wide angle shot from a camera at the front of the room or can focus on the instructor and a white board using a camera at the back of the room. There is a document camera on the desk which can be used to project objects, papers, photographs, or even hand-written notes while they are being written. Video cartridges can also be transmitted. Computers can be linked to the document camera so that the monitor can be viewed over the system. Voice transmission occurs according to which site is producing the loudest sound. This means that only one site can speak at a time, but since it can detect sound, the system automatically broadcasts the location which is producing it. I was fortunate to have a technical assistant for the entire program, although the participants had to operate their equipment themselves. Since the camera remained focused on them except for one or two occasions this seemed to present no problem. It would have been helpful to me to be able to do some of the camera work and adjustment between video, computer, and camera myself, since there was often a lag while the tech determined what feature I planned to use next. Allowing the facilitator more control over the equipment would definitely have helped during the times when there was a great deal of interaction in progress. It is true that the production was simplified by having an assistant present who could fax things as needed, turn on the video, prepare the computer for use, and perform other tasks both before and during the programs. Some of the purely physical advice that I had before the start of the program was extremely useful For example, our Media Services Director warned me not to wear jangling jewelry. I also avoided white, but did not receive advice about bright colors, and this would have been helpful. Pale colors quickly become boring. I had a great deal of interaction, but there were some times when I used the computer and PowerPoint for presentations, and this was very effective. The document camera was also very useful, since I could write notes as we discussed things and be certain that we all had the same information. This could also be used to show printed material and books, but it was only really readable if it was in very narrow columns. On one occasion the participants worked on a problem for which they needed to present their own graphical representation of an ethical situation. They were successful using the document camera except for one site where it was not working that day. The person at this site put her drawing in front of the regular camera and we were all able to see it quite clearly as she explained her > reasoning. Participant Reactions All of those attending this program claimed to find it valuable and useful. None of them would have been able to participate if it had been done at a single location, so all agreed that the technology had given them an opportunity that would not otherwise have been available. It also gave the group a sense of identity in working together and discussing these issues. One evaluation form stated, "With the few sites that we have, I believe that GSAMS fostered a sense of collaboration." The opinion of this participant was that more people or more sites would have made people feel more isolated. Several comments pointed out the isolation felt generally by members of small faculties in rural locations. One participant wrote on the evaluation form, "As the only CS faculty on my campus I always feel as sense of isolation. This helped alleviate it." Helping faculty in far-flung rural schools is one of the best attributes of compressed video in my view. Further Possibilities Many states are building systems for use by their institutions, and little has been done about determining the best use for this equipment. In the computer science community there is a lot of distrust of anything that smacks of "distance education", but the full interactivity provided by compressed video makes it a particularly good vehicle for work on social and ethical issues in computing. The usefulness for faculty workshops on ethical issues is clear, but it is equally clear that such systems can be put to good use by our regular courses, and for the introduction of the social, ethical, and professional aspects of computer science. Faculty can collaborate in order to guarantee expertise in a wider variety of areas for our students. Since faculty tends to be located at widely separated colleges, the use of compressed video seems like a good choice for discussion of many topics in addition to those involving ethical and professional issues. Faculty members at small colleges can find themselves to be quite isolated. Of the faculty who participated in my program, none had more than one or two colleagues who were also computer scientists. This technology could allow group meetings on a variety of subjects including ethical issues. For example, in Georgia, it would be wonderful to plan monthly meetings over GSAMS which would be made available at sites spread around the state. These could include topics of current interest which might change each month. One set of meetings could explore the kinds of ethical issues that might be taught in various courses in the computer science curriculum. References Bruce, M.A. & Shade, R.A. (1995). Effective teaching and learning strategies using compressed video. TechTrends, 40 (3). Reprinted in GSAMS Update, 2 (13), 18-22. Collins, W.R. & Miller, K.W. (1992). Paramedic ethics for computer professionals. Journal of Systems and Software, January, 1992. Galbreath, J. (1995). Compressed video teleconferencing: An overview. Educational Technology, 35 (1), 31-38. Hakes, B, Sachs, S., Box, C., & Cochenour, J. (1993). The burgeoning interest in compressed video. TechTrends, 38 (1), 16-21. Huff, C. and Finholt, T. (1994). Social Issues in Computing. New York: McGraw Hill. Johnson, D.G. (1994). Computer Ethics. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Schrum, L. (in press). Teaching at a distance: Strategies for successful planning and development. Learning and Leading with Technology. Thatch, L. & Murphy, K.L. (1994). Collaboration in distance education: From local to international perspectives. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(3), 5-21.