Vidic 2:00
L18
COMPUTER TUTORS AND ETHICS
Anna Siryk (ans215@pitt.edu)
INTRODUCTION: AN ETHICALLYCHARGED SCENARIO IN DEVELOPMENT
OF A COMPUTER TUTOR
Suppose that I am a software engineer that is part of a team
researching the effectiveness of spoken dialogue computer
tutors. In the development of a computer tutor, I program a
section that allows the software to track whether the student
is using the Internet to solve questions, but only when the
student is using the computer tutor at the same time. In later
testing of the software, I have to decide whether or not
information about that addition should be revealed to the
students working with the computer tutor.
In the interest of testing the software, it would be
beneficial for me to not reveal this addition to the students,
because it looks for behavior that changes the way the
computer tutor reacts to a student’s answer. It has two
important functions that are vital to the success of the
computer tutor: testing for uncertainty and testing for
boredom.
Kate Forbes-Riley and Diane Litman of the Learning
Research and Development Center at the University of
Pittsburgh tested users’ performance using a computer tutor
with and without uncertainty detection. They concluded that
when uncertainty is recognized and adapted to, the local
performance of the user improves significantly [1]. Therefore,
in the context of this scenario, if a student is unsure of their
answer to a question, and they find the answer using the
Internet, their answer will sound certain, while they are
actually unsure. Consequently, the computer tutor will not be
able to respond accordingly, which will worsen the student’s
performance.
Tracking students’ usage of the Internet while using this
tutoring software can also be used to infer whether they are
bored or frustrated. Boredom has been shown to correlate
with less use of cognitive strategies while learning, and
frustration may disengage the student from a task and reduce
learning overall [2]. Hence, it is essential to check for signs of
these states so the software can adjust its output to prevent
these negative outcomes.
In light of this information, would it be ethical if I chose
to not inform the students of the software’s ability to track
their Internet usage, if I wanted to ensure the best results from
testing? I am going to use the National Society of Professional
Engineers’ (NSPE) Code of Ethics, the Software Engineering
Code of Ethics, and articles from accredited professors of
ethics and professors of engineering to answer this question.
However, in this particular scenario, are all of these resources
helpful in making an ethical decision?
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering
2013-10-29
APPLYING THE NSPE CODE OF ETHICS
The first section of the NSPE Code of Ethics that may
apply to this situation is Section I.5, which simply states,
“Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties,
shall avoid deceptive acts [3].” Withholding information can
be seen as a deceptive act, therefore, if I just consider the
action of omitting information from students, I could say my
behavior is unethical. However, since the reasoning behind
this action is to test the software’s effectiveness, I do not think
this section pertains to this situation. If I did not withhold this
information, the research would likely be skewed, because the
students would most likely be biased against using the
Internet if they knew that the computer tutor would recognize
their attempts at cheating the system.
Section III.3.a of the NSPE Code of Ethics, which is the
only other section that may also apply to this situation, states
that “Engineers shall avoid the use of statements containing a
material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact
[4].” If I, as a software engineer, chose not to inform students
of an invasion of their privacy, I would not be adhering to this
statement. However, since I would be omitting a fact while
testing a product rather than while selling one, omitting this
information would not detriment the students in any way,
since they would be using this program while under
observation, which would not allow them privacy anyhow.
Therefore, I do not believe this statement is particularly
applicable to this scenario.
Unfortunately, the NSPE Code of Ethics is too broad to
cover this particular scenario. Adding in the factor of being
part of a research team makes the statements in this code of
ethics too ambiguous. As a consequence, they cannot be used
to accurately decide whether or not withholding information
from students that test this software is unethical.
APPLYING THE SOFTWARE
ENGINEERING CODE OF ETHICS
The decision to not inform students testing a program that
a computer tutor knows when they access the Internet deals
primarily with software engineering. Therefore, the Software
Engineering Code of Ethics will contain more specialized
guidelines pertaining to this situation. Additionally, this code
of ethics has more statements that will apply specifically to
me, as a software engineer.
Principle 1.06 states, “Be fair and avoid deception in all
statements, particularly public ones, concerning software or
related documents, methods and tools [5].” This statement is
generally the same as the NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.5, in
that an engineer should “avoid deception.” Therefore, like the
Anna Siryk
NSPE Code of Ethics, this statement does not clarify whether
withholding certain information from students that test a
program would be considered “deception.” Again, this
statement is too broad to cover this particular scenario.
Principle 3.01 of the Software Engineering Code of Ethics
states that software engineers should “strive for high quality,
acceptable cost and a reasonable schedule [6].” Informing
students of the software’s capability to check for Internet use
would bias them against their natural tendencies, and would
skew the results. By this principle, the decision to keep the
testing of the software unbiased would be ethical, because it
would ensure the highest quality product.
This code of ethics goes on to state, in Principle 3.10, that
software engineers should “ensure adequate testing,
debugging, and review of software and related documents on
which they work [7].” As stated above, “adequate testing” of
the computer tutor would not involve informing students of
all of its components, as that would bias them, resulting in the
testing not accurately showing how well the program works.
Therefore, by this principle, my decision is ethical.
Principle 3.12, however, states that software engineers
should “work to develop software and related documents that
respect the privacy of those who will be affected by that
software [8].” In this scenario, the computer tutor that I am
programming will check for specific Internet use while the
program is running, which could be seen as not respecting the
privacy of the students using the software. In that sense, my
decision to not tell students testing the program about this
capability would be unethical, since the software would not
be respecting their privacy.
As expected from its more specialized statements, the
Software Engineering Code of Ethics provides much more
helpful ethical values than the NSPE Code of Ethics. From
the principles of it that pertain to this scenario, I conclude that
my decision is ethical. While the computer tutor may slightly
invade the privacy of the students, which violates Principle
3.12, accurate testing, which is necessary to uphold Principle
3.01 and 3.10, holds a higher ethical priority. Therefore, the
need for unbiased testing of the software overrules any slight
invasion of privacy that will occur.
from the students agreeing to test my software, it could be
argued to be a case of “nondiligence,” since the students
would be making an agreement without knowing all the facts.
To avoid such unethical behavior, however, I could simply
include a statement in the agreement stating that the students
could not be informed of every aspect of the computer tutor
software for testing purposes, and let them act as they would.
Peter Froelich, a lecturer in the Department of Computer
Science at Johns Hopkins University, argues that when
engineers rely entirely on codes of ethics, it rarely provides a
completely ethical solution, because there are so many details
that should be common sense, but are not considered due to
not being listed in these codes of ethics [10]. I believe this is
a fair point. So, by looking at my decision from my own
perspective, I believe that not informing the student testers of
my software about the computer tutor’s ability to check for
Internet use is completely ethical. In the same way a teacher
should know if their students are using the Internet during a
test, I believe the computer should know if a student is using
the Internet during their sessions.
Kenneth D. Pimple, Director of Teaching Research Ethics
Programs at the Poynter Center for the Study of Ethics and
American Institutions, holds the view that computing
systems’ small invasions of privacy are not, by themselves,
unethical [11]. Therefore, my computer tutor’s brief Internet
usage checks should not be unethical, since they are just
small, limited invasions of privacy.
In a more general sense of software engineering ethics,
Deborah G. Johnson, a professor of applied ethics at the
University of Virginia, stated that the basis for ethical
decisions should be “trust.” Specifically, decision makers
should act in a way so as to be worthy of public trust [12].
Applying this logic to my decision, I believe that if I made the
decision to withhold a piece of information in order to have
more accurate results in testing, I would gain more trust than
if I gave away the information and skewed the results.
CONCLUSION: ETHICAL DECISION
MAKING: THIS AND OTHER SCENARIOS
After consulting a multitude of sources to decide whether
or not I should inform the student testers of my software’s
ability to track Internet usage, the ethical decision would be
not to inform them. Although tracking students’ Internet
usage, even for a short period of time, is unethical under
Principle 3.12 of the Software Engineering Code of Ethics,
which states that engineers should strive to develop software
that does not invade the privacy of its users [4], the code of
ethics goes on to state that accurate testing and high quality
products are also a priority. The issue of “nondiligence,”
which is an agreement made without full understanding of
what is being agreed upon [9], can be rectified with simply
stating that the students testing the software cannot be told the
full details due to testing purposes. As I also believe that my
OTHER ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Since the NSPE and Software Engineering Codes of
Ethics are general, other sources of ethical guidelines should
be considered for this situation.
One such source is the article that Brian Berenbach of
Siemens Corporate Research and Manfred Broy of the
Technical University of Munich published, which elaborates
on more specific ethical dilemmas in software engineering
than the Software Engineering Code of Ethics provides. One
of these dilemmas, which the authors dubbed “nondiligence,”
states that a situation in which agreements are made without
a clear understanding of what is being agreed upon is
unethical [9]. Therefore, if I decided to withhold information
2
Anna Siryk
decision is morally correct, I have no reservations about
judging this decision to be ethical.
I advise engineers who are looking to act with ethical
integrity to first consult their own moral compass, because
most codes of ethics are based on “common sense” of what is
right. Then, I recommend first consulting the code of ethics
of the specific type of engineering the decision deals with, and
then referring to the NSPE Code of Ethics, because those
specialized codes of ethics contain more specific guidelines,
which are more likely than the NSPE’s to contain relevant
information. Additionally, some of the most thought-out
ethics guidelines are those published by professors of ethics
and professional engineers, and so specific problems one
might encounter may already have been thoroughly debated
in engineering publications.
[8] IEEE-CS/ACM Joint Task Force on Software Engineering
Ethics and Professional Practices. (1999). 3.12. Software
Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice.
http://www.computer.org/portal/web/getcertified/resources/c
ode_of_ethics
[9] B. Berenbach, M. Broy. (2009). “Professional and Ethical
Dilemmas in Software Engineering.” Computer. (Online
Article).
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.pitt.idm.oclc.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?t
p=&arnumber=4755159&tag=1
[10] P. Froelich. (2008). “Ethics considered harmful.”ACM
SIGCAS Computers and Society. (Online Article).
http://delivery.acm.org.pitt.idm.oclc.org/10.1145/1390000/1
386587/p21froelich.pdf?ip=132.174.255.116&id=1386587&acc=ACTI
VE%20SERVICE&key=C2716FEBFA981EF17A2771D9E
7C32E8FAD577D985794B35D&CFID=365222182&CFTO
KEN=78882433&__acm__=1382832089_aa8eca8451537a6
d27d23ab5ad148be4
[11] K.D. Pimple. (2011). “Computing Ethics Surrounded by
Machines.” Communications of the ACM. (Online Article).
DOI: 10.1145/1897852.1897864.
[12] D.G. Johnson. (2008). “Computing ethics: Computer
experts: guns-for-hire or professionals?” Communications of
the ACM. (Online Article). DOI: 10.1145/1400181.1400190
REFERENCES
[1] K. Forbes-Riley, D. Litman. (2011). “Benefits and
challenges of real-time uncertainty detection and adaptation
in a spoken dialogue computer tutor.” Speech
Communication.
(Online
Article).
http://www.sciencedirect.com.pitt.idm.oclc.org/science/articl
e/pii/S0167639311000318?np=y
[2] M.M.T. Rodrigo, R.S.J.D. Baker, J. Agapito, J. Nabos,
M.C. Repalam, S.S. Reyes Jr., M.O.C.Z. San Pedro. (2012).
“The Effects of an Interactive Software Agent on Student
Affective Dynamics while Using an Intelligent Tutoring
System.” IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing. (Online
Article).
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.pitt.idm.oclc.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?t
p=&arnumber=6122013&tag=1
[3] National Society of Professional Engineers. (2007). I.5.
NSPE
Code
of
Ethics
for
Engineers.
http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html
[4] National Society of Professional Engineers. (2007).
III.3.a. NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers.
http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html
[5] IEEE-CS/ACM Joint Task Force on Software Engineering
Ethics and Professional Practices. (1999). 1.06. Software
Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice.
http://www.computer.org/portal/web/getcertified/resources/c
ode_of_ethics
[6] IEEE-CS/ACM Joint Task Force on Software Engineering
Ethics and Professional Practices. (1999). 3.01. Software
Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice.
http://www.computer.org/portal/web/getcertified/resources/c
ode_of_ethics
[7] IEEE-CS/ACM Joint Task Force on Software Engineering
Ethics and Professional Practices. (1999). 3.10. Software
Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice.
http://www.computer.org/portal/web/getcertified/resources/c
ode_of_ethics
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
S. Valentine, F. Vides, G. Lucchese, D. Turner, H. Kim, W.
Li. (2013). “Mechanix: a sketch-based tutoring and grading
system for free-body diagrams.” AI Magazine. (Online
Article).
http://go.galegroup.com.pitt.idm.oclc.org/ps/i.do?action=inte
rpret&id=GALE%7CA325892061&v=2.1&u=upitt_main&i
t=r&p=AONE&sw=w&authCount=1
B.M. McLaren, K.E. DeLeeuw, R.E. Mayer. (2011). “A
politeness effect in learning with web-based intelligent
tutors.” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies.
(Online
Article).
http://www.sciencedirect.com.pitt.idm.oclc.org/science/articl
e/pii/S1071581910001205?np=y
P.A. Jaques, H. Seffrin, G. Rubi, F. de Morais, C. Ghilardi,
I.I. Bittencourt, S. Isotani. (2013). “Rule-based expert
systems to support step-by-step guidance in algebraic
problem solving: The case of the tutor PAT2Math.” Expert
Systems
with
Applications.
(Online
Article).
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S09574174
13002418
A. Leuski, D. Traum. (2011). “NPCEditor: creating virtual
human dialogue using information retrieval techniques.” AI
Magazine.
(Online
Article).
http://go.galegroup.com.pitt.idm.oclc.org/ps/i.do?id=GALE
%7CA261385406&v=2.1&markList=true&u=upitt_main&it
=r&p=AONE&sw=w
3
Anna Siryk
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to wholeheartedly thank my writing
instructor, Liberty Ferda, for ruthlessly reviewing my work to
improve my writing, and I would also like to thank my
brother, Alex Siryk, for ensuring that I persevere, and for
supporting me in his own way.
4