A Cooperative Learning Approach to
Teaching Social Issues of Computing
by
To appear in Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Computers
and the Quality of Life 1996 (CQL'96), Feb 14-15 1996,
Philadelphia, PA.
Copyright (C) 1996 by the Association for Computing Machinery,
Inc. Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all 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 new copies bear this notice and the
full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of
this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting
with credits permitted.
To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers or to
redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or
a fee. Request permissions from Publications Dept., ACM Inc.,
Fax +1 (212) 869-0481, or permissions@acm.org.
High-quality materials for teaching the social and ethical
aspects of computing are now becoming widely available,
especially with the recent publication of anthologies by Kling [12], Huff and Finholt [8] and
others. But much of the literature about teaching social issues
has focused on what specific topics to teach [4,
13], who should teach them [10], and where in the curriculum these issues
should be addressed [14]. The issue of
how to teach these issues has so far received less
attention.
As I began to teach this topic eight years ago, my experience as
a retired R&D project manager suggested to me that students
needed more interpersonal skills and personal value development
than they could attain in a traditional lecture-format course. I
sensed that small-group activities might be a way to address this
problem, and to help students anchor their learning in their own
life experiences -- an intuition which was reinforced by other
instructors' suggestions of in-class activities. Recent examples
of appropriate activities include Bellin's structured debates [2], Basse's mock "trials" [1],
Epstein's case studies [6], and Gotterbarn's
"capstone" team projects [7]. But although my
early attempts to introduce small-group activities generated a
lot of student enthusiasm (as Baase found in her work), they
still lacked the structure and focus that I was trying to
achieve.
In the educational methodology literature, I found substantial
recent research and practice which address issues of group
structure and focus -- in an approach termed cooperative
learning. Long studied and used at the K-12 level, cooperative
learning techniques are now finding wider application in
university classes. According to Cooper, et.al. [5], cooperative learning "is a structured,
systematic instructional strategy in which small groups of
students work together toward a common goal." The authors list
and describe six distinguishing features of this approach:
positive interdependence, individual accountability, appropriate
assignment to groups, the teacher as coach or facilitator,
explicit attention to social skills, and face-to-face problem
solving. They cite a number of studies which find that
"cooperative learning is generally more effective than more
traditional forms of instruction and is rarely less effective."[5] (Note: this reference contains many additional
references and other sources of information on cooperative
learning. A newsletter and an extensive annotated bibliography is
available from the Network for Cooperative Learning in Higher
Education: contact Jim Cooper, California State University
Dominguez Hills, HFA-B-316, 1000 E. Victoria St., Carson, CA
90747, (310)-516-3961.)
The purpose of this article is to share some of the ideas that
I've learned from the writings of Cooper and his colleagues, some
of the problems that I've encountered, and a specific cooperative
learning exercise that has been particularly effective in my
classes. I most frequently rely on small-group in-class
discussions, structured as follows:
- I assign a specific question or problem. This is usually
based on a previously-assigned reading.
- The class breaks into small groups. Each group develops an
answer or point of view. I give them a specific, short time limit
(maybe 10 minutes) for this.
- Groups either report back to the whole class, or trade
answers with another group. I might designate a spokesperson for
each group -- different each time.
There are many possible variations in group organization [11] and group assignments. I've had groups
clarify concepts or terms, identify and prioritize key issues
from an article they've read, "brainstorm" ways to approach a
problem, conduct a miniature design project, develop strategies
based on assigned points of view, share personal experiences,
role-play a scenario, or analyze a case study. Careful
organization is the key to small-group success. Here are some
helpful strategies that I've applied:
- I form the groups. If students select their friends as
partners, they'll probably spend their time talking about
anything but course material.
- Groups of four or five are best. Smaller groups represent
too few viewpoints; larger ones make it easy for a student to
"hide."
- I make groups as heterogeneous as possible, mixing academic
ability (high, medium, low), personality (outgoing, reserved),
major (in a mixed-major class), gender, and background. I also
make sure that each group is ethnically and culturally diverse.
This and the two preceeding points address Cooper's "appropriate
assignment to groups."
- I've found that I have to be involved in the group
discussions, moving from one to another frequently. This gives me
more personal contact with each student, helps me learn names,
and keeps each discussion "on track." I really do feel like the
"coach and facilitator" that Cooper recommends.
- I vary the group activity format from day to day. All
groups might work on the same project, then compare results;
alternatively, each group might have a different portion of a
larger project. Groups might split into one-on-one interview
teams (Cooper's "face-to-face problem solving"). Sometimes I'll
ask for individual work (for example, identifying key issues)
prior to the group discussion. Each group spokesperson might
write results on the board, and so on. See [11]
for many more specific techniques that can be used (without their
"cute" K-12 oriented names).
- I encourage each group to think and act like a team
(Cooper's "explicit attention to social skills"). Group members
trade email addresses, in case one has to miss class. In my
culturally-diverse California classroom, they learn to greet each
other in everyone's native language (literally from Arabic to
Vietnamese, with ten or more others in between). Some of my
colleagues suggest taking a Polaroid picture of each team, and
posting these in a prominent place (this also helps in learning
names.)
The small-group approach can involve substantially more work (at
least initially) than designing a traditional lecture, since it
involves not only studying or reviewing the substantive material
but also designing an effective intellectual structure for the
task. Challenges which I've encountered with this format include:
- Questions and activities for the groups must be carefully
focussed -- simply asking "what did you think about this
article?" is not productive. One of the most difficult aspects of
cooperative learning for me to apply has been the "positive
interdependence" that Cooper, et al. [5] cite as
a key element of their approach. This is a group structure in
which each member is assigned a unique aspect of the overall
task, in such a way that group success depends on integrating all
members' work. Although I've introduced some elements of positive
interdependence in larger tasks (for example, term projects),
I've found it harder to incorporate in short in-class exercises.
- Some students are initially passive, or uncertain how to
react in small groups. This is understandable, since the majority
of their courses -- especially technical ones -- have probably
been conducted in very traditional lecture format, with strictly
individual work. Suddenly, they're expected to develop and share
their own ideas. I try to provide them with a non-critical,
non-threatening atmosphere in the group. Most will participate,
even if they wouldn't in a full-class discussion. Only a very few
never seem to feel comfortable in this environment.
- Other students may monopolize the conversation, although
not necessarily on purpose. This can generate strong resentment
or withdrawal on the part of others in the group. My role as
"coach and facilitator" is challenged here; in an extreme case, I
may have to spend some individual time with the "monopolizer," to
assist this student in developing a more appropriate role within
the group.
- Established groups don't work well if several members are
missing, so I place a premium on attendance. On the other hand, a
motivated group will frequently provide peer pressure that
encourages attendance.
- It's easy to feel that I've "lost control" of the class.
There is no central focus on the instructor; many students are
talking at once. I remind myself: this is good! Students who are
talking about the topic are at least thinking about it -- they're
likely to be involved with it.
- I can't outline in advance the whole-class discussion that
follows a group assignment. Instead, I'm now responding to the
students' ideas (rather than the other way around). It's
exciting! I am -- "on the fly" -- simultaneously trying to keep
the discussion focused on a specific topic or objective,
encourage participation and involvement, explain points that
students may have misunderstood, reinforce the best ideas that
they present, help fuzzy thinkers clarify their ideas (without
embarassing them), incorporate lessons from the students' own
experience, and add examples from assigned or outside readings
and my own experience.
- I have also had to overcome problems in the physical
classroom arrangement. A room with completely movable furniture
is ideal but not always available. Some of my classes are held in
rooms designed as laboratories, with long tables fixed to the
floor. Small groups can work across the tables, just as they
might do in a business meeting. But these rooms have a stage in
front for the lecturer -- a built-in barrier to communication. I
vary my position in the room, frequently sitting on top of a
table or in the middle of a group. Sometimes, moving closer to
students that are reluctant to speak (in a collegial,
non-threatening manner, of course) helps to draw them "out of
their shells." I avoid lecture halls if at all possible!
One structured exercise which has become a perennial favorite
with my students is focused on value conflicts -- how people's
own personal and social value systems influence what they think
of as a "good" technical system. I first designed this exercise
to follow the assigned reading of an article by Rob Kling, "Value
Conflicts in the Design and Organization of EFT Systems," which
had gained a bit of notoriety among my students as being
"academic" and "hard to read." (This article has been updated --
see readings below.) But once they became personally involved in
the group exercise, their fear of the reading turned to
excitement and involvement with the material. A key contribution
of this exercise to my goals for the course is that it challenges
students to represent an assigned value system, and not what they
personally might believe. This, coupled with the group
interaction and subsequent debate, can lead them into a better
understanding of others' views -- and refinement of their own.
Recommended reading for this exercise:
- Kling, Rob. "Information Technologies and the Shifting
Balance Between Privacy and Social Control," in [12].
- Kusserow, Richard P. "The Government Needs Computer
Matching to Root Out Waste and Fraud." in [12]
- Shattuck, John. "Computer Matching is a Serious Threat to
Individual Rights," in [12]
Instructions to students:
The purpose of this exercise is to explore how your own personal
and social value system affects what you think of as a "good"
technical system.
First, we will discuss in class several different value systems,
as they are presented in Rob Kling's article and in the
California Voters' Pamphlet handout (see discussion, below). I
will assign each team to play the role of one of these value
systems. Your task is to define what a "good" Information
Super-Highway looks like to you.
Think about: Who will build it? Who should pay for it (for
building -- for operations)? Who specifies the technical
characteristics? What are desirable technical characteristics?
Who provides the content (data, text, etc.)? What is appropriate
or inappropriate content? Who has access? How is access provided,
and by whom? Who administers the net? Who regulates the net? What
kind of regulation is appropriate?
You will start to develop a group position on these issues in the
first class meeting. Then over the weekend, you should look for
more information on your assigned value system, to help you
represent this role accurately. The net itself is probably a good
place to start looking for this kind of information. You could
also look in the library, or even call a political party office
to see if they have any position papers on the topic.
In the second class meeting, your group will finalize its
position, and then we will debate the issue. The better you can
play the role, the more fun (and more learning) this is.
Remember, your role does not have to match what you might think
yourself.
Discussion:
This exercise is really worth two class meetings -- one in which
to explain the value systems and form teams, and one in which to
conduct the debate. You may wish to find a guest speaker,
possibly from your university's political science department, to
explain the major differences between various parties and
interest groups.
The "California Voters' Pamphlet" handout referred to above is a
list of statements by major and minor political parties on their
"official" positions. This and similar publications make a good
supplement to any other reading on value systems. Most states
should provide equivalent voter information; you could also
contact political parties individually.
This is a good exercise in which to "mix up" any
previously-formed in-class teams. You might have the students
randomly draw cards, each of which is printed on the back with
one of the value systems. You might divide the class size by the
number of value systems you wish to cover, or adjust the number
of value systems by your desired team size. With a small number
of value systems, teams might be larger than usual -- but six or
seven per team can still function well in this exercise. It is
very important to convince students that they are representing
the assigned value system, and not what they personally might
believe. This can be a real challenge, which hopefully will lead
students into a better understanding of others'views -- and their
own.
It is important to assign a selection of value systems which is
as diverse as possible. It is also important for each team to be
very quick in contesting other teams' views that contradict their
own. A useful selection of value systems might include:
- Private enterprise. You might note the extent to which both
major political parties support this view, and the extent to
which private enterprise assumptions pervade much of the
discourse about technical systems.
- Libertarian. I've found that if the "libertarians" in the
class debate are playing their role accurately, they will really
challenge many of the other students' notions about what is
appropriate for the government (not) to do. Encourage them to
intervene vocally at any time that another group suggests
publicly-funded or government-regulated solutions!
- Statist -- this is probably hard for many students to
conceptualize. It will be easier if they have first read an
article such as Kusserow (see above) on computer matching.
- Systems -- it might be useful to start the group discussion
with their views, which most likely will be focused solely on
higher speed technology, advanced protocols, and so on. Then
other groups can argue how these system characteristics represent
only a part of the overall (social) system design.
- Others -- from the California pamphlet, you might want to
include Peace and Freedom and/or Green. Students should be able
to find a substantial presence in the electronic media
(world-wide web, etc.) of views at this end of the political
spectrum.
Students should also be able to supplement any assigned readings
with material from newspapers, television, and other current
media. In the discussion, you can bring out the ways technology
may be misrepresented for political purposes -- for example, by
otherwise "liberal" U.S. Representatives and Senators who argue
for censorship of electronic (but not printed or broadcast)
media.
One important use of the debate/discussion is to demonstrate how
different value systems might agree on some issues (e.g.,
government funding) but disagree on others (e.g., government
regulation). Groups might even find themselves making
"coalitions" with other groups in order to support their own
position.
In place of the "information super-highway" questions, you could
use many other topics for this exercise. One good plan would be
to give each team an example of proposed legislation -- either
actual (e.g., the recent Telecommunications Act) or fictitious.
In the debate, they would defend, criticize, or modify the
proposal, and would have to support their position with rationale
appropriate to their value system.
The educational methodology literature can suggest useful
strategies for teachers in any discipline, and can provide a
framework for careful thinking about teaching techniques. For
teaching social issues of computing, I can specifically recommend
the literature on cooperative learning -- especially the work of
Cooper and his colleagues.
My experience so far with cooperative learning has been both
challenging and worthwhile, and I will continue to expand and
refine my use of these techniques over time. Despite the
challenges, my students have become much more engaged with the
course material than they would have been in a passive,
note-taking lecture environment. They have also begun to see the
social issues of computing in terms of their own life experience
and future career development, not just in terms of material to
be memorized for an exam.
This paper has focused on one of the themes developed in the
Instructor's Resource Guide [9] written by Tom Jewett and Rob
Kling to accompany Computerization and
Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices (2nd edition)
[12]. More information on both publications -- and a copy of
this paper -- are available through the author's World Wide Web
site on Social Issues of Computing:
http://www.engr.csulb.edu/~jewett/social/.
A welcome addition to the literature on teaching social issues of
computing would be additional applications of specific
educational methodologies. Since interpersonal skills and
personal value development are key elements of a course in social
issues of computing, it makes sense to use modern teaching
techniques -- such as cooperative learning -- that involve
students in relevant behaviors in the classroom and that are as
contemporary as the technologies we wish to understand.
The author is deeply indebted to
Rob Kling,
the inspiration for my approach to social issues; Bob
Jewett (UIUC, Emeritus), the inspiration for my approach
to teaching; Mark
Ackerman and
Jonathan Grudin,
for freely sharing teaching tips and assignments;
Mike Mahoney
and Sandy Cynar, for enthusiastic departmental commitment to
teaching social issues; Richard Lynch, for helpful comments on
the draft of this paper; and most especially to all of the
ENGR350 and ICS131 students who perhaps have taught me more about
teaching than I've taught them about the subject material.
- Baase, Sara. "Comments on the Feature
Article." Computers and Society, 25:2, June 1995, p.5.
- Bellin, David. "Some (Provocative) Thoughts
on 'Teaching Computers and Society'." Computers and
Society,
25:2, June 1995, p.4.
- Bynum, Terrell Ward, Walter Maner, and John
L. Fodor (eds.). Teaching Computer Ethics. New Haven,
CT:
Research Center on Computing and Society, 1992.
- Bynum, Terrell Ward. "Computer Ethics in
the Computer Science Curriculum." in [3].
- Cooper, James L., Pamela Robinson, and
Molly McKinney. "Cooperative Learning in the Classroom," in
Changing College Classrooms, Diane Halpern and
Associates (eds.).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994.
- Epstein, Richard G. "The Case of the
Killer Robot." Computers and Society, 24:4, December
1994, pp.
12-32.
- Gotterbarn, Donald. "A 'Capstone' Course in
Computer Ethics." in [3].
- Huff, Chuck and Thomas Finholt (eds.).
Social Issues in Computing: Putting Computing in its
Place. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.
- Jewett, Tom and Rob Kling. Teaching
Social
Issues of Computing: Challenges, Ideas, and Resources.
(Instructor's Resource Guide for [12]). San Diego: Academic
Press, 1996.
- Johnson, Deborah. "Who Should Teach
Computer Ethics and Computers & Society?." Computers and
Society,
24:2, June 1994, pp. 6-7.
- Kagan, Spencer. Cooperative
Learning. San
Juan Capistrano CA: Resources for Teachers, 1992.
- Kling, Rob. Computerization and
Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices (2nd
edition).
San Diego: Academic Press, 1996.
- Martin, C. Dianne, and Hilary J. Holz.
"Non-Apologetic Computer Ethics Education." in [3].
- Miller, Keith. "Integrating Computer
Ethics Into to Computer Science Curriculum." in [3].
Dec 19, 1995
jewett@engr.csulb.edu