ISSN

0387-0278

金 沢 医 科 大 学
教

養

論

文

集

MEMOIRS ON
LIBERAL ARTS AND SCIENCES
KANAZAWA MEDICAL UNIVERSITY

Vol. 492022

CONTENTS
Expectations and Outcomes of a Writing Curriculum for First-year Medical Students･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････ WOODS Craig 1

Using Text Validation Rules to Teach English Writing Mechanics for Typed Documents･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････ WOODS Craig and DUFF Nicholas 13

From Engineering Ethics to Robot Ethics ････････････････････････････････････････ HONDA Kojiro 29

1Expectations and Outcomes of a Writing Curriculum for First-year Medical Students
WOODS Craig*

Introduction
Developing an effective curriculum for any subject is not an easy task to complete. There is acontinual need to assess course outcomes and make revisions to improve the quality. These days,
there are also significant changes occurring with educational technology which can affect many
aspects of a course, from delivery to assessment. Given the challenges of curriculum design,
educators should periodically review and evaluate their curriculum in order to identify areas ofstrength and weakness. With this in mind, the purpose of this report is to assess the effectivenessof the most recent curriculum used for teaching English writing skills to first-year medical school
students and to search for areas for improvement.
In 2015, I did a complete redesign of my curriculum using an approach commonly known as
Backward Design and explained in a professional development book called Understanding by
Design（1）and its associated workbook（2）. As the name implies, this backward design approach
involves beginning with the end in mind. There are three stages（1）:Stage 1: Identify desired results
Stage 2: Determine acceptable evidence
Stage 3: Plan learning experiences and instruction.
As explained in the book, the ultimate purpose of this design approach to developing a good
curriculum, assessment process, and instructional method can be posed as the following question:“Through good design, how do we make it more likely that more students will really understand what
they are asked to learn?”（1）.
Determining the Desired Results
To determine the desired results of a course（Stage 1 of backward design）, we need to consider
two factors: the amount of course time available, and the starting level of the students. As any
experienced educator would agree, it is inappropriate to include too much or too little content for theteaching time available. It is also unacceptable to start a course at a level too easy or too difficult forthe majority of students.

*

Division of General Education（English）（Accepted on October 7, 2022）

WOODS Craig

2

Regarding the course time, I currently have a total of approximately 20 classroom hours to teachwriting skills to first-year students. In addition, I can hope that students spend approximately thesame number of hours outside of class completing class-related learning activities. This means thestudents have up to 40 hours to achieve the desired results of the course.
As for the starting level of the students, we give them a placement test in their first week at school to
get an idea of their current English ability. Our placement test is a cut-down version of a standardized
language proficiency test, such as a TOEFL test. Results from this test give some measure of thestudents’ English language ability, but the test is somewhat limited for the following reasons:●

It is an incomplete test done in a limited amount of time.

●

It is based on a standardized test, which is not tailored to a particular level but rather
attempts to measure ability on a very wide scale, from beginner to expert user.

●

It is based on multiple choice questions which test receptive skills.

Another way to understand the students’ English competency is to have students self-assess theirability across different language skills. The Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages（CEFR）is an international standard for describing language ability that provides good
guidelines for self-assessment（3）. The aim of the framework is to help educators, learners, andemployers understand what a person can actually do in a language. There are six levels ranging frombasic to proficient. We give the students a CEFR self-assessment questionnaire that asks them what
they think they can do in each of the four language skills of reading, writing, listening, and speaking.
For example, the CEFR self-assessment grid for writing is shown in Table 1. It presents level-specificstatements to the students, and they tell us what they think they can currently do.
Table 1: CEFR Self-assessment grid for Writing
Level

Writing 書くこと

C2

I can write clear, smoothly flowing text in an appropriate style. I can write complex letters,
reports, or articles, which present a case with an effective logical structure, which helps
the recipient to notice and remember significant points. I can write summaries and reviewsof professional or literary works.
明瞭な、流暢な文章を適切な文体で書くことができる。効果的な論理構造で事情を説明し、その重要点を読み手に気づかせ、記憶にとどめさせるように、複雑な内容の手紙、レポート、記事を書くことができる。仕事や文学作品の概要や評を書くことができる。

C1

I can express myself in clear, well-structured text, expressing points of view at somelength. I can write detailed expositions of complex subjects in an essay or a report,
underlining what I consider to be the salient issues. I can write different kinds of texts in astyle appropriate to the reader in mind.
適当な長さでいくつかの視点を示して、明瞭な構成で自己表現ができる。自分が重要だと思う点を強調しながら、手紙やエッセイ、レポートで複雑な主題を扱うことができる。 読者を念頭に置いて適切な文体を選択できる。

Expectations and Outcomes of a Writing Curriculum for First-year Medical Students

B2

I can write letters highlighting the personal significance of events and experiences. I canwrite clear, detailed text on a wide range of subjects related to my interests. I can write
an essay or report, passing on information or giving reasons in support of or against aparticular point of view.
手紙の中で、事件や体験について自分にとっての意義を中心に書くことができる。
興味関心のある分野内なら、幅広くいろいろな話題について、明瞭で詳細な説明文を書くことができる。エッセイやレポートで情報を伝え、一定の視点に対する支持や反対の理由を書くことができる。

B1

I can write personal letters describing experiences and impressions. I can write
straightforward, connected text on topics that are familiar or of personal interest.
私信で経験や印象を書くことができる。身近で個人的に関心のある話題について、つながりのあるテクストを書くことができる。

A2

I can write short, simple notes and messages relating to matters in areas of immediateneed. I can write a very simple personal letter, for example, thanking someone forsomething. I can write a series of simple phrases and sentences linked with simple
connectors like “and”, “but” and “because”.
直接必要のある領域での事柄なら簡単に短いメモやメッセージを書くことができる。短い個人的な手紙なら書くことができる : 例えば礼状など。
「そして」
「しかし」
「なぜなら」などの簡単な接続詞でつなげた簡単な表現や文を書くことができる。

A1

I can write a short, simple postcard, for example, sending holiday greetings. I can fill informs with personal details, for example, entering my name, nationality, and address on a
hotel registration form. I can write simple isolated phrases and sentences.
新年の挨拶など短い簡単な葉書を書くことができる。例えばホテルの宿帳に名前、国籍や住所といった個人のデータを書き込むことができる。簡単な表現や文を単独に書くことができる。

The most recent time we used the CEFR self-assessment grid was with first-year students at the
beginning of the 2021 school year. The average self-assessed writing ability was A2. We have onlyused the grid at the end of a school year one time. At the end of the 2014 school year, the average
self-assessed writing ability was B1.
I believe that this CEFR self-assessment by the students has provided the most reliable measure of
real English ability for first-year students at KMU. Based on these surveys, I can say with reasonableconfidence that the starting English writing ability of most KMU students is A2. Given this level andthe time constraints for the course, I can reasonably expect students to reach level B1 by the end of
the course. I now have an established starting point and ending point for a writing course for firstyear medical students.
Curriculum Design for English Writing
The first stage in backward design is to “examine established content standards, and review
curriculum expectations.”（2）. It also involves making choices about what we think we can do in thetime available. This stage helps us determine priorities.

3

WOODS Craig

4

Stage 1: Desired Results
My goal for the English Writing course is to move first-year students from the CEFR A2 level tothe B1 level. A detailed description of what a language learner at level B1 can do includes activities
beyond what can be accomplished in a 20-hour course. As a result, to set the end-of-course goals,
I need to select and modify the CEFR B1 level descriptors that I believe are the most relevant
and achievable for first-year medical students. Following is the modified list of CEFR B1 can-do
descriptors as well as specific desired outcomes for the English Writing course.
Established Goals（Based on CEFR B1 Descriptors）
By the end of the course, students can:●write straightforward connected texts on a range of familiar subjects within their field ofinterest by linking a series of shorter discrete elements into a linear sequence.

●

give straightforward, detailed descriptions of a range of familiar subjects within their fieldof interest.

●

give accounts of experiences, describing feelings and reactions in simple, connected text.

●

give a description of an event, a recent trip – real or imagined.

●

narrate a story.

●

produce very brief reports in a standard conventionalized format, which pass on routine
factual information and state reasons for actions.

●present a topic in a short report or poster, using photographs and short blocks of text.

Essentially, these goals describe writing skills beyond the word-selection or sentence-completion
activities that students would have mostly done in high school. They describe writing skills at theparagraph and short-essay level. Students at this level should be able to write various kinds ofparagraphs, such as descriptive, cause-and-effect, or comparative paragraphs.
What understandings are desired?
Students will understand that …
●

A paragraph is a group of sentences about a single topic.

●

There are different kinds of paragraphs.

●

A well-written paragraph has a clear and easily identifiable structure.

●

There are two important characteristics of a well-written paragraph:○

Unity – all the sentences in the paragraph must support a single idea.

○

Coherence – the supporting details are organized in a logical way.

●

A short essay is a natural extension of the structure of a single paragraph.

●

A solid understanding of paragraph structure leads to more easily understanding longer
texts such as essays, reports, and even research papers.

●

To create a good text, it is important to respond positively to feedback and revise yourwriting.

Expectations and Outcomes of a Writing Curriculum for First-year Medical Students
What essential questions will be considered?
●

What exactly is a paragraph? What does it physically look like?

●Why do we use paragraphs?

●

What kinds of sentences are used to make a paragraph?

●

What are the structural elements of a good paragraph?

●

What differentiates a good paragraph from a bad one?

●

How will paragraph writing skills benefit me in the future?

What key knowledge and skills will students acquire as a result of this course?
Students will know...
●

the mechanics and format of a paragraph, for instance, the correct use of capital letters,
punctuation, indents, and the enter key when typing reports in English.

●

the key structural elements that make up a well-written paragraph.

●that there are various types of paragraphs, and they use words and phrases specific to them.

●that understanding the structure of a single paragraph will help them write longer texts
comprising multiple paragraph types.

●

to improve their writing skills, they need to take responsibility and respond to feedback.

●how to create professional-looking typed documents in English that are properly named andformatted according to strict guidelines.

Students will be able to...
●write a well-structured paragraph using a variety of sentence patterns, including simple,
compound, and complex sentences.

●write with a level of accuracy that will successfully communicate the intended message ofthe text - it does not need to be free of errors but needs to be readable and repairable.

Stage 2: Assessment Evidence
In order to measure the students’ progress and achievement of the course goals, this stage inbackward design requires consideration in advance of the forms of assessment during the course（2）.
My aim is to provide tasks related to formative assessment during the course, opportunities forstudents to develop autonomy, and summative assessment at the end of the course. Following are thevarious performance tasks that I have included in the course.
Performance Tasks●

Regular assignments - Students create original texts on various topics of interest. They
do small-group discussions and learning activities to prepare for the assignment. They
create and revise their work with assistance from classmates and the teacher. They produce
professional-looking, typed documents following a specific format. After completing an

5

WOODS Craig

6

assignment, they have the opportunity to improve their grade by re-submitting it after
responding to the teacher’s feedback.
●Self-learning activities - Students do optional activities to improve their writing skills. They
practice autonomous learning and understand that they are ultimately responsible for theirown learning.

●

Unit exam - Students take a writing test similar to internationally recognized tests, such as
those used in TOEIC, TOEFL, or IELTS writing exams. It is a paper-based writing test on
an unspecified topic, that is to be written without a dictionary or computer for assistance.

●

Other Evidence - All quizzes and assignments given during the course are initiallyformative assessments. Students can self-check their quiz scores. They can revise andresubmit their work until the deadlines. Their final grades will automatically reflectevidence of autonomous learning.

Stage 3: Learning Plan
After gaining a clear understanding of desired learning outcomes and preparing in advance the waysof measuring the achievement of those outcomes, I can now develop my lesson plans. Here, I must
consider the “enabling knowledge（facts, concepts, principles）and skills（processes, procedures,
strategies）.”（2）that the students will need to achieve the outcomes.
●

Begin the course with a review of the basics of English writing, highlighting the majordifferences between the mechanics（i.e., capitalization, punctuation, spacing）of Japaneseand English writing. Teach the key vocabulary to talk about English writing. Introduce theshape and purpose of a paragraph.

●

Begin work on regular assignments using a four-step design process.
1）Understand - background information and class discussions2）Plan - learn and practice using the required vocabulary and grammar
3）Create - learn pre-writing planning methods and the expected writing structure4）Revise - work with technology, classmates, and the teacher to improve the text●

Use topics of interest for assignments that require using a variety of paragraph types.
Incrementally introduce the key structural elements of paragraphs with each topic. Current
topics:1）A medical history - use a consultation form to create a basic medical profile
2）The patient experience - describe a hospital visit from the patient’s perspective3）Giving advice - write your advice for living a healthy life4）Common cures - compare self-care ideas for simple health problems

Expectations and Outcomes of a Writing Curriculum for First-year Medical Students●

Provide opportunities for students to self-learn various sentence structures, structuralelements of paragraphs, and characteristics of good paragraphs.
1）Sentence structures - simple, compound, and complex sentences2）Paragraph elements - topic, support, and concluding sentences3）Paragraph characteristics - unity and cohesion●

Have students practice spaced repetition of key material throughout the course. They willpractice spaced repetition of quizzes in class and in their own time.

●

Finish the course with a review of the structure of paragraphs and preparation activities forthe unit exam. Teach how to write effectively in a time-limited exam situation.

Outcome - Achievement of Desired Results
As stated in the introduction of this paper, the aim of this backward design for curriculum
development is to “make it more likely that more students will really understand what they are
asked to learn.”（1）. For this writing class, the desired outcome is to give students the ability to write
English at CEFR level B1. The results of formative and summative assessment tasks can give us an
idea of how well this outcome has been achieved
Throughout the course, students do four assignments, which are initially considered formative
assessments. The students are free to use technological assistance when doing assignments, suchas automated spelling checkers, grammar checkers, and dictionaries. They are also given plenty oftime and support to do the assignments and are encouraged to revise and resubmit their work after
it has been graded. After the deadline for resubmissions, the assignment grades are then consideredsummative assessments.
At the end of the course, students take a unit exam in which they are required to write a text. This
test is a form of summative assessment that should provide an overall idea of the students’ unassisted
writing ability. The unit exam grading rubric for the students’ texts is shown in the Appendix. A
passing grade（shown in the rubric as level C）represents work that is at the very least understandable
and repairable. The final grade when using the rubric is decided by the weakest area of the text.
For example, a student may use a perfect structure for the text（level A）but have limited control ofgrammar（level C）. As a result, the student is awarded a final grade of level C because that represents
the weakest area of the text.

7

WOODS Craig

8

Table 2: Assignments and unit exam grades awarded for the 2021 school year.
GradesAssignments（N=429）

Unit Exam（N=108）

S（100%）

11.66%（n=50）0%（n=0）A（85%）

25.41%（n=109）

2.78%（n=3）

B（75%）

39.63%（n=170）

32.41%（n=35）

C（65%）

16.08%（n=69）

55.56%（n=60）

CF（60%）

2.56%（n=11）

2.78%（n=3）

F（30%）

4.66%（n=20）0%（n=0）Chart 1: Assignments and unit exam grades awarded for the 2021 school year.

Table 2 and Chart 1 present a breakdown of grades awarded in assignments and unit exams for the2021 school year. As can be seen in the table and more clearly in the chart, there are some differencesin the grades awarded for these assessment types.
The assignment grades are more widely spread across the range of possible grades, from ‘S’ to ‘F’.
For the unit exam, the majority of students clearly fell into the ‘C’ range. A ‘C’ grade means that they
were able to impart their intended message in the text, but understanding that message required someeffort on the part of the reader. The most common reason for getting a C was due to limited control ofgrammar or vocabulary. The most common reason for failing the unit exam was that the text had an
unclear structure. The reason the chart shows nobody failing the unit exam is that students who failed
were able to pass the make-up exam.
In my opinion, assignment writing more accurately reflects how we create a text in the real world.
We use technology, and we revise our work. Unit exams may give a picture of the actual language
ability of the student, but assignments give a picture of more than just language ability - they showthat students are able to produce higher quality texts given time, assistance, and the opportunity torevise their work.

Expectations and Outcomes of a Writing Curriculum for First-year Medical Students

In short, the grades awarded in the assignments and the unit exam suggest that the students do
understand and can perform what I have asked them to learn: the ability to write a paragraph or shortessay with an identifiable structure. The areas for improvement in their writing skills relate mostly toaccuracy with grammar and vocabulary.
Outcome - Areas for Improvement in the Curriculum
Every year, a new group of students enters the university. Currently, the desired results of thecurriculum are based on self-assessments by students whose educational experience may be quite
different from today’s typical applicant. The students entering the university from 2021 onwards
experienced a disrupted education in their final years of high school because of the COVID-19
pandemic. As a result, I suspect that the starting point for English writing proficiency has fallen
below CEFR level A2. It would therefore be a good idea to do CEFR self-assessments both at the
beginning and at the end of the first year of university for the next few years.
During the course, students are given numerous self-study quizzes designed to supplement the inclass teaching and improve their writing skills. These quizzes are awarded a very small amount ofpoints and have long deadlines（due near the end of the course）. The hope is that these quizzes will
promote autonomous learning and proactive study habits. However, the truth appears to be thatthe students who already have these skills do the quizzes soon after they become available. On theother hand, the students who don’t have these abilities wait until the deadline is almost upon them.
I need to find a way to nudge the poorer performing students to do the self-study quizzes without
taking away the opportunity for them to express their autonomy in learning. Simply put, giving thequizzes short deadlines does not give students the chance to show initiative. Perhaps, I can have shortconsultations with students who are struggling to be proactive about their studies. Another option isto send them regular reminders about class requirements or show them their progressive scores more
often. I currently only give grade updates at the halfway point of the course. I could increase thefrequency and amount of feedback to give them a clearer sense of what still needs to be completed or
improved on.
Conclusion
I believe that backward design is an effective method for curriculum design. In developing myown courses, this design method has given me a very clear guide on how to improve the learner’s
experience and understanding of what I can reasonably expect students to learn. By using backward
design, I am able to see the connections between each of the stages, from defining the desired results,
determining the assessment evidence, and though to developing the learning plan. This ultimately
results in a curriculum that is more cohesive and effective at achieving the desired course outcomes.
There are areas for improvement in the course design, but I would recommend using this approach to9

WOODS Craig

10develop an effective curriculum.
Appendix

Grading Chart for Unit Exams

Criteria

A

B

C

F（fail）

Task（about 150 words）（120-140 words） （100-120 words） （< 100 words）
fulfillment
Fully satisfies the
Mainly satisfies
Partially satisfies the Does not satisfy thedemands of thethe demands of the demands of the task, demands of the task,
task, with a goodtask, with somewith little expansion with no expansion
expansion of the
expansion of theof the topic.
of the topic.
topic.
topic.
Responds to at least Responds to one or
Responds to all
Responds to mostsome content points none of the content
content points fully content points
appropriately.
points appropriately.
and effectively.
appropriately.
Grammar （very good）（good）（limited）（poor）

Adequate range ofgrammar used withno impeding errors.
Uses a variety ofsentence structures,
though not always
accurately.

Many errors,
sometimes difficult
to follow. Uses
mostly simple
sentence patterns.
Minimal controlof other sentence
structures.

Little language orsuch poor control
as to affect thecommunication of
the message.

（good）（limited）（poor）

Very good control
and range ofvocabulary on the
topic; accuracy
is high. Errors
don’t impede
communication.

Good control ofvocabulary on the
topic. Several errors
when expressing
unfamiliar orcomplex ideas.

Limited control ornarrow range ofvocabulary. Errors
make the message
difficult to follow inparts.

Very basic range ofvocabulary for the
topic.

（clear）（mostly clear）（somewhat unclear）（unclear）

Coherent text
correctly using
the full range of
linguistic devices
taught in class. Few
if any punctuation
errors.

Mostly coherent text Attempts toadequately using a use linguistic
range of linguistic
devices taught indevices taught inclass though notclass. Punctuation
always consistent.
errors do not impede Errors, including
communication.
punctuation, makethe text difficult tofollow.

Grammar isappropriate to thelevel and mostly
accurate. Able touse a variety ofsentence structures
accurately.
Vocabulary （very good）

Structure

Grade:

*

S

A

B

C

Errors make themessage nearly
unintelligible.

Lacks coherence
and/or uses
linguistic andstructural devices
inappropriately.
Punctuation errors
make the text
almost impossible
to follow.

F（based on weakest area）*S（100%）will be awarded for work of outstanding quality that fully satisfies the above criteria.
CF（60%）will be awarded for work that has the potential to pass but fails due to a minor
misunderstanding of the task requirements.

Expectations and Outcomes of a Writing Curriculum for First-year Medical Students
References
1.

WIGGINS G., McTighe J. Understanding by Design. 2nd ed. Virginia USA: ASCD; 2005

2.

MCTIGHE J., Wiggins G. Understanding by Design - Professional Development
Workbook. Virginia USA: ASCD; 2004

3.

Common European Framework of Reference for Languages（CEFR）. Strasbourg Cedex
FRANCE: Council of Europe; 2022. Available from: https://www.coe.int/en/web/commoneuropean-framework-reference-languages/level-descriptions

11

13

Using Text Validation Rules to Teach English Writing Mechanics for Typed Documents
WOODS Craig* and DUFF Nicholas*

Abstract
Despite the growing use of computers and other devices for education, many Japanese EFL students
still struggle to use proper mechanics when typing in English. For computer-based assignments, thisresults in more errors, making the process of providing effective feedback to students overwhelming
for teachers. The use of regular expressions（regex）may provide a solution to these issues as they
can act as rules to control text entries. Given this, the study aimed to assess the effectiveness of regex
text validation rules to teach English writing mechanics to Japanese students in an EFL context.
The study involved 72 first-year nursing students enrolled in a 15-week general English course. To
assess the effectiveness of the regex rules developed for the study, eleven writing samples per student
were reviewed to identify, count, and compare the occurrence of systematic errors. Error rates werethen compared as percentages of the total assignments submitted. Results indicated that the regex
rules helped reduce punctuation errors. However, they had limited success at eliminating excess
spaces between words and were largely unable to prevent student misuse of conjunctions. In lightof these results, English teachers may consider integrating regex rules into written assignments toprovide autonomous feedback for specific punctuation errors, but will likely need to complement thisfeedback with direct instruction.
Keywords: Writing mechanics, Regex, Feedback, Error analysis, EFL*

Division of General Education（English）（Accepted on October 7, 2022）

WOODS Craig and DUFF Nicholas

14

1. Introduction
Given the growing trend to move education online, an increasing number of students are now
required to complete their studies using computers. With this shift, completing written assignments
online or on word-processing software is now standard for many English language courses. Despite
this change, many Japanese users of English still have difficulty when typing in English, particularly
in regards to following standard formatting conventions and punctuation rules. With this in mind,
we believe there is a need for English teachers to be able to efficiently and effectively teach English
mechanics for computer-submitted assignments.
The proper use of mechanics is important for effective written communication; correct spelling,
punctuation, capitalization, and other technical aspects of writing help to convey meaning and clarity.
However, class-based evidence from typed assignments collected over the last several years ofEnglish classes has shown that Japanese English learners appear to have difficulty applying propermechanics to computer-based writing. Minor errors such as a space on the left side of a colon, amisplaced comma, or incorrect spacing around parentheses may go unnoticed or seem insignificant
to a Japanese speaker. However, to a native speaker of English, such mistakes make a document
look unprofessional and give a poor impression of the author. A native speaker of English is likely tothink: How can I have confidence in the content of this message when the author can’t even get thepunctuation basics right? In other words, mistakes in punctuation not only hinder the intelligibilityof the writer’s message, but also its credibility.
Writing is an essential skill for learners of English. For those aiming to work in healthcare, being
able to write with accuracy and proper mechanics is especially important. With a strong foundationin writing skills, nursing students will be better prepared to communicate with foreign patients, write
research papers, and create work-related documents, such as emails, hospital guides, patient forms,
prescription forms, or letters of referral. In this way, being able to write accurately enhances theprofessional competence of the learner, and also helps to maintain the credibility and professionalismof the hospital.
Despite the need for competency in writing skills, this area of language learning is often neglectedby educators due to the time needed to provide effective, actionable feedback to students. For theteacher, it can be a highly repetitive and tedious task that commonly results in prioritizing feedback
for specific errors while ignoring others. Unaddressed, these errors often reoccur in student writing,so it is important for teachers to have tools and methods to maximize the feedback that they are able
to provide to students. One approach is using computer-generated error prompts and having students
develop the skill of correcting their own errors. This approach is especially helpful for large classes
and when there is limited time for the teacher to give feedback.
Another challenge to effective feedback is lack of student follow-through. When providing
feedback, teachers expect their students to act on it in order to reinforce their learning. For instance,
students may be asked to correct specific errors, rewrite sentences, identify a pattern of errors, or do
focused practice on a particular weak point. However, students rarely give enough attention to thisUsing Text Validation Rules to Teach English Writing Mechanics for Typed Documents
important step of the learning process; unless externally incentivized, acting on feedback often stops
at a cursory review of the teacher’s comments. Therefore, in addition to being able to maximize
feedback, teachers need a way to ensure that students reflect on their writing errors and take steps tocorrect them. With the use of certain regex settings, we believe that using computer-generated error
prompts as a method of feedback may provide a solution for this.
2. Background
2.1 Identifying Possible Sources of Errors
A key part of error analysis in foreign language education is trying to identify the causes of errors
in a student’s speech or writing（1）. In the context of this study, it is important to first understand thewriting skills that students are expected to have by the time they enter university. This backgroundknowledge can provide clues into the causes of errors and help teachers more quickly discern actual
errors from isolated mistakes when reviewing student work. The Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and Technology（MEXT）education guidelines offer a good standard to initiallyestimate student competency.
According to the MEXT Junior High School guidelines（2）for the teaching of English in theJapanese education system, it is expected that elementary schools will introduce the correct writingof uppercase and lowercase letters, as well as the proper use of basic English mechanics, suchas periods, commas, and spaces between words. In junior high schools, compound and complex
sentences are introduced as well as additional punctuation such as exclamation marks, quotation
marks, and apostrophes. According to the MEXT Senior High School guidelines（3）, no direct
attention is given to the basic mechanics of English writing as it is assumed that students havealready gained appropriate control. Despite this, it should not be assumed that a student’s writing
skills will naturally transfer to computer-based assignments; it is also important to consider students’
expected knowledge of computer skills and basic computer literacy.
The MEXT learning guidelines for Junior High School indicate that computers are expected to be
utilized in numerous subjects, such as Japanese language studies, history, mathematics, and foreign
language studies to enhance learning activities（4）. The guidelines for Senior High school present
similar objectives for computer use（5）. This suggests that the current generation of students will
have had some familiarity with using a computer by time they have graduated.
In regards to foreign language studies, the MEXT Senior High School guidelines recommend
providing English language computer activities that require inputting English sentences using
a keyboard, and making use of computers to improve the efficiency of teaching practices suchproviding feedback for written work（3）. However, these guidelines seem to provide only suggestions
for teaching languages, not requirements. There is no indication that computer literacy specificallyrelated to accuracy in typing in English is required to be taught.
This lack of training can cause issues as there are important differences in computer input methods
between Japanese and English. Errors with mechanics in English texts could be due to language

15

WOODS Craig and DUFF Nicholas

16transfer caused by the computer input methods used when typing in Japanese. Language transfer
refers to “the tendency to transfer the phonology, syntax, and semantics of the native language into
the learning of the second language.”（6）. This interference could cause errors with capitals, spaces,
and new lines. For example, the shift key is never used when typing in Japanese as there are no
capital letters in Japanese text. Also, the space bar is used to show relevant Japanese characters fromhiragana created via romaji input, and the enter key is used to select the desired Japanese characters.
There are also differences in punctuation and spacing between Japanese and English writing. For
instance, there are no spaces between words in Japanese texts. When using periods and commas inJapanese texts, the spacing is automatically created by the computer. There is no need to add a single
space after a comma or period as is done when typing in English.
Consider the following Japanese text example showing a comma within a sentence and a period
between two sentences:
昼食後、買い物に行きます。それから家に帰ります。
（Translation: After lunch, I will go shopping. Then I will go home.）
In the Japanese text above, notice that there appears to be a space after the comma and period.
However, these spaces were not input manually while typing. There was no need because the space
is a fixed part of the punctuation mark used; it is built into the character and needs no direct attention
by the typist. The transfer of Japanese input methods when typing in English may be a source of
mechanical errors.
2.2 Difficulties in Providing Manual Feedback
Beyond identifying errors, teachers also need to provide feedback when scoring student work. In
its most basic form, feedback shows students where errors were made, but ideally it also provides
some form of support so that the students can learn from their mistakes. For written assignments,
students generally make the same type of errors and mistakes repeatedly, so providing thoroughfeedback can become a very repetitive and time-consuming job for the teacher. For many students,
receiving such extensive and detailed feedback can also be overwhelming or discouraging（7）.
Another difficulty when providing manual feedback is the unavoidable time delay that occurs
between receiving student work and returning it with comments. When time does not allow for
students to resubmit an edited text to the teacher, they are unlikely to actively respond to post-writing
feedback. Moreover, when writing for a new assignment, students may not apply the feedback they
already received on previous work. This ultimately means that many students repeat the same errors
in their writing. We believe a more effective approach would be to give feedback in real-time, while
the students are actually typing the assignment. One way of accomplishing this is by using text
validation rules.

Using Text Validation Rules to Teach English Writing Mechanics for Typed Documents
2.3 Regex-based Feedback
Anyone who has experienced filling in a web-based form will have seen red flags when somethingis entered incorrectly, or felt the frustration of not being able to submit the form until all the errors
have been corrected. The rules governing the text entries on a website are forcing the user to learn
and apply the correct entry method. These rules are created using regular expressions, commonly
known as regex（8）. They are made using a string of characters that specify a pattern. Regex is usedin many ways and not just for input validation. For example, it is used in search engines or in findand-replace operations in word processors.
In the context of an English writing class, regex can be used for input validation as a means ofproviding in-progress feedback to students as they type their assignments via a Google Form—a
web-based tool for creating surveys, quizzes, and various other forms. Because regex-based feedback
is autonomous and instantaneous, it would remove the need for teachers to spend excessive amountsof time preparing feedback for errors in English mechanics. In the time saved, teachers could instead
focus their attention on providing feedback for content-based errors.
3. Research Goal
In summary, it is important to learn the proper use of English mechanics when creating electronic
documents. Although MEXT indicates that essential writing skills are covered during schoolingprior to university, there are still significant error rates with punctuation usage on computer-based
assignments. Providing manual feedback to address such errors is a very time-consuming job forteachers, and it is unlikely that students will pay attention to feedback that does not require follow-up
action by them. Considering these issues, we believe that it would be more effective to have students
self-check their work as they create it. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of using
regex text validation rules for teaching English writing mechanics to Japanese learners of English as
a foreign language.
4. Methods
4.1 Participants
A convenience sampling method（non-probability sampling method）was used for participant
selection. The sample group consisted of 72 first-year students enrolled in a nursing school（68female, 5 male）. There was no control group, as all students participated in the same class. Student
ages ranged from 18 to 20 years（average 18.9 years）. More than half of the students were graduatesof senior high schools in Ishikawa Prefecture（60.27%）, with the remaining students graduating fromsenior high schools in eleven other prefectures. All students were exposed to the same course content
and assessed by the same standards for the course.
4.2 Description of the Course
Students were enrolled in a four-skills general English course co-taught by two native English-

17

WOODS Craig and DUFF Nicholas

18

speaking teachers. Classes ran for ninety minutes and were held once a week over a period of 15
weeks. The course used the textbook titled “English Firsthand Success.”（9）. This textbook is rated at
Basic User level A2 of the Common European Framework of Reference（CEFR）for Languages（10）.
The primary in-class activities included vocabulary practice, dictations, pronunciation drills,
dialogues, and guided conversations with classmates. Throughout the course, students wrote andsubmitted weekly short paragraphs as part of their assessment.
4.3 Data Collection Process
Longitudinal data were collected over the 15-week period of the course and were taken fromwriting assignments. In total, there were 12 paragraph writing assignments planned. Three classes
were used for oral tests, so no writing assignments were collected on those days. Due to a schedulechange, it was not possible to collect writing assignments for the final unit, so a total of 11 shortparagraphs per student were expected.
The paragraphs were collected using Google Forms. One of the features of Google Forms is
response validation, which prevents an input from being accepted until it meets a required rule. For
example, a student may need to select at least 2 answers for a checkbox question, or write a minimum
number of characters for a paragraph question. It is also possible to use regular expressions（regex）tovalidate a response. A simple example might be to restrict input to being exactly 5 digits. This canbe used for the entry of a student ID number in a short answer question. The code for this can be
expressed as: ［^ 0-9］{5}$
Image 1: The response validation function in a Google Form

Regex rules were developed to validate the students’ paragraphs with regards to English
mechanics. A student was not able to submit an assignment until the regex rules were met. These
regex rules were introduced from the second to fourth assignments and were removed for the final
two assignments. During the course, the regex rules gradually became more complex. Table 1 shows
the order of introduction of the computer-controlled input rules.

Using Text Validation Rules to Teach English Writing Mechanics for Typed Documents

Table 1

Regex rules introduced during the course

Assignment # Computer-controlled paragraph entry rules
1●

No rules2● Do not press the ‘Enter’ key inside a single paragraph
Response validation:❖ Regular expression doesn’t contain /n

3

Added
● No spaces before and only one space after the basic punctuation marks ofperiod（.）comma（,）semi-colon（;）colon（:）question mark（?）exclamationmark（!）.
● A capital letter must follow a sentence ending mark（.!?）and a single space.
● Only one space between words
Response validation:❖ Regular expression doesn’t contain|\b|\s{2,}|\b\s{2,}\b|（\b\s+［.,:;!?］［.,:;!?］［.,:;!?］［.!?］\s［a-z］+）

4

●

5

Added
● Do not use a common conjunction（But/So/And）to start a sentence.
Response validation:❖ Regular expression doesn’t contain|\b|［.,:;!?］\s{2,}|\b\s{2,}\b|［.!?］\s［a-z］+|But\b|So\b|And\（\b\s+［.,:;!?］［.,;!?］
b）

6

Added
● Put one space between digits（0-9）and the word following.
Response validation:❖ Regular expression doesn’t contain|\b|［.,:;!?］\s{2,}|\b\s{2,}\b|［.!?］\s［a-z］+|But\b|So\b|And\b|（\b\s+［.,:;!?］［.,;!?］
+）
［0-9］
［a-z］

7

●

As above8●

As above9●

As above10●

All rules removed

11●

All rules removed

12

No assignment collected

As above

In addition to the regex rules, students were also provided with a self-help sheet titled“Troubleshooting Writing Mistakes”（Image 2）to assist their writing. This resource was intended toencourage learner autonomy by guiding the students to identify and self-correct common errors inwriting. In this way, we aimed to make the revision process intentional, with students first noticing
a specific error and then referencing the self-help sheet to find the appropriate correction. The sheet
also acted as a preventative measure to students resorting to guess-and-check revisions. In thismethod of revising, when an initial response is not accepted, students make as many changes asneeded to satisfy the answer requirements. These changes are often guesswork or random entries,

19

WOODS Craig and DUFF Nicholas

20

so much of the learning that could come from revisions is wasted. The self-sheet covers simple
punctuation rules and how to use conjunctions correctly.
Image 2: Self-help sheet

Using Text Validation Rules to Teach English Writing Mechanics for Typed Documents
4.4 Data Analysis Process
Student-submitted paragraphs were checked for the following types of errors:

Table 2

Types of errors preventable to regex rules

Error type

Detail

New lines

Unnecessary use of the It is the most common name in my family. ThisEnter key within a single name is very popular.［ENTER key pressed］
paragraph
There are three hundred thousand people ...

Punctuation

Periods and commas not It is a family name .
used with correct spacing...in my country is Tanaka.I have a lot of ...
However,I am not sure ...

Sentence-head
Capitalization

Sentence does not begin i like white and blue.
with a capital letterkids have a lot of homework, but …

Excess spacing

Two or more spaces used I have a lot of__friends with this name.
between words
It is because__it’s easy to move to do anything.

Conjunctions

Sentences starting with … a female name. But, I don’t know …
common conjunctions（but, ... connection. So I’ll treasure …
so, and）… in Japan. And, there were ...

ExampleThese errors are the types that can be prevented by using regex rules. Some mechanical errors
cannot be prevented using regex, such as misusing capitalization within a sentence, spacing on theinside of quotation marks, or spelling mistakes.
The prevalence of each type of error was counted for the total number of each assignment
submitted. The actual number of errors within a single assignment was not counted. That is, if anassignment had multiple errors of the same type, they were only counted as a single occurrence ofthat error type. For example, a single assignment could have five punctuation errors within it, but it
was only recorded as one assignment with one or more punctuation errors.
5. Results
Errors were counted for each of the assignments submitted by the students and compared aspercentages of the total assignments submitted（see Table 3）. For example, for Assignment 1, 24 of
62 valid assignments（38.71%）had at least one “New lines” error. An error rate of 0% shown in thetable means that the applied regex rule completely prevented students from making that error.

21

WOODS Craig and DUFF Nicholas

22

Table 3

Error rates as percentage of total valid assignments

Assignment #New lines

Punctuation

Sentence-head
Capitalization

ExcessspacesConjunctions

1（n=62）38.71%

37.10%

0%

9.68%

20.97%

2（n=69）0%42.03%

1.45%

5.80%

24.29%

3（n=65）

0%

0%

0%

0%

27.69%

4（n=70）

0%

0%

0%

0%

40.00%

5（n=72）

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

6（n=72）

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

7（n=71）

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

8（n=72）

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

9（n=69）

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

10（n=69）

4.35%

17.39%

1.45%

7.25%

21.74%

11（n=69）

5.80%

11.59%

1.45%

2.90%

30.43%

The following charts are a graphical representation of each error type, showing the error rates
before applying regex rules（Pre-regex）and then after removing the rules（Post-regex）for the
final two assignments. As mentioned previously, the students were not able to make any of theseerrors while the regex rules were applied. It is worth noting again that the regex rules were applied
gradually. For instance, students could not make a “New lines” error within a paragraph after
Assignment #1, and they could not make punctuation errors after Assignment #2.
Charts 1 and 2 show changes in error rates before and after using regex rules for new-line errors
and punctuation errors. These errors were found in approximately eight out every twenty assignments
submitted prior to applying regex rules. After forcing students to not start a new line within aparagraph, and to correctly use punctuation marks, the error rates appear to drop significantly. In
particular, only about one in twenty assignments had new-line errors and about three in twenty had
punctuation errors. However, it is it is not possible to do statistical analysis with the current data set
due the differences in requirements among the assignments.
Charts 3 to 5 show the prevalence of the three other kinds of errors that regex rules could control
for: Not starting a sentence with a capital letter, putting 2 or more spaces between words withina sentence, and starting sentences with the conjunctions But/So/And. The prevalence of sentencehead capitalization errors never occurred in more than a single assignment both before and afterusing regex rules. Likewise, the prevalence of excess spacing errors started low and only changed
minimally. Although the error rates for starting a sentence with a conjunction are greatly influenced
by the requirements of the assignment, the general trend in this chart suggests that regex rules toprevent this type of error were ineffective in teaching students not to do so.

Using Text Validation Rules to Teach English Writing Mechanics for Typed Documents

23

WOODS Craig and DUFF Nicholas

24

6. Discussion
The purpose of this study was to find out if text validation rules using regex were effective forteaching English writing mechanics to students with Japanese as their first language. The results
showed that the validation rules were useful in significantly reducing punctuation errors. However,they were of limited effectiveness with reducing excess spaces between words within a sentence, andhad basically no effect with the misuse of conjunctions.
Using regex codes allows the teacher to give immediate feedback to students to an extent thatwould not be possible if done by hand. The immediate feedback also forces the student to act on it
and put the suggested change into practice at least once. It is a form of deliberate practice that could
otherwise be avoided if students were not required to act on feedback from the teacher. While thisneed to make changes based on immediate feedback is helpful, results from the study showed mixed
levels of effectiveness for errors that could be controlled with the use of regex.
The regex rules may have been particularly effective at teaching punctuation rules becauseof the usage amount on assignments. Rules guiding punctuation usage were in effect for seven
assignments（Assignments 3 to 9）. Each assignment required at least five sentences. Therefore, thoseseven assignments would have required the use of around 35 periods. This means that the regex rules
were likely actively providing live feedback to the students who were making mistakes with periods.
Although the need for commas in an assignment was much lower, the same feedback would haveoccurred over those seven assignments. In other words, the high rate of recurring practice for specificpunctuation marks may have led students to learn punctuation rules more quickly than other writing
mechanics.
Also worth noting is the time saved for the teacher by not having to check the punctuation. For aclass of 72 students, the total number of periods used for each of the 11 assignments averaged 372;
the average of total comma usage per assignment was 86. Using regex rules to control punctuationmeans that the teacher does not need to spend any time checking for these types of errors withmechanics. Students benefit as well, as they can instead focus on manual feedback related to content
changes.

Using Text Validation Rules to Teach English Writing Mechanics for Typed Documents
The error rates for excess spaces between words within a sentence did not appear to significantly
change pre- and post-regex. Even prior to using the rules, this kind of error never exceeded 10%,which is about seven assignments a week for a class of 70 students. It is probably worthwhile
keeping this regex rule functioning throughout the course just to help students pay close attention totheir work. It might promote a general increase in attention to detail.
The misuse of conjunctions by using them to start a sentence did not reduce post-regex. There
are several possible reasons for this. First, most assignments did not explicitly require the use of
conjunctions, so students would not have been exposed to much live feedback from the regex rules.
The first four assignments allowed for the use of conjunctions to start a sentence. The error rateincreased suddenly for Assignment 4 most likely because of the topic: Write about the good and bad
points of your hometown. More conjunctions can be expected in a response for this type of topic thanfor Assignment 1 - Write about the most common names in your country or family, Assignment 2 Write about your favorite clothing and fashion, or Assignment 3 - Write about your ideas or advice
for a happy or healthy life.
The next reason that errors with conjunction use did not reduce could be that students simply
avoided using conjunctions while the regex rules were in operation. That is, when given feedback
related to conjunction usage, students might have decided to circumvent the issue simply by nottrying to use the conjunction correctly and instead omitting it completely. Students were instructed
to use the self-help sheet for information about conjunction usage, but without self-reported data, wewere unable to confirm if students proactively accessed the self-help sheet to try to learn how to use
the conjunction correctly.
Finally, conjunctions are so commonly used in spoken English to start a sentence that students
may not consider it worth avoiding. It may be that this misuse of conjunctions with written
English cannot not be fixed without specifically teaching how to make compound sentences withconjunctions. According to the MEXT guidelines, compound and complex sentences are introducedin junior high school（1）. However, given the limited English class periods provided in junior highschool, it is unlikely that students would have had much opportunity to practice using conjunctions in
written English at that time, let alone use them in computer-based assignments.
7. Limitations
One of the limitations of this study was the research approach. There are well-known limitations
to using convenience sampling in research. Namely, it is not possible to apply the findings of thisresearch to other populations of Japanese learners of English. However, considering the longitudinal
nature of the data collection and the relatively large sample size（averaging 69 assignments for each
unit of study, totaling 760 assignments）, we feel that the results have at least some reliability andvalidity.
This study was also limited by the nature of regex rules. We were not able to prevent one kindof common error by using regex rules, namely, the misuse of a capital letter within a sentence. It

25

WOODS Craig and DUFF Nicholas

26

is unlikely that we could ever control for mid-sentence misuse of capitals using regex because it
would require some form of external linking with a comprehensive list of all English words requiring
capitalization, such as names of people and places.
8. Conclusion
While regex-based feedback was unable to stop certain mechanical errors, it did produce
promising results for enforcing proper punctuation use. In future courses, it would be useful to again
measure the effectiveness of the regex rules. For example, to get a more accurate picture of how wellstudents have adopted the proper use of targeted English mechanics, regex rules could be introduced
immediately after Assignment 1, removed once in the middle of the course, reintroduced, and thenremoved once again at the end of the course. This would allow for a comparison of the changes inerror rates.
It would also be of value to see the access rates for the self-help sheet for learning how to use
punctuation and conjunctions correctly. Including questionnaires or surveys could also offer valuable
insight into the students’ ability to apply information from the self-help sheet to their written
assignments. Finally, finding a way to teach the correct use of conjunctions in written English isneeded. There is not much time in the course to spend on this issue, so it may be necessary to include
some practice activities in other homework tasks.

Using Text Validation Rules to Teach English Writing Mechanics for Typed Documents
References1.

Bussmann, H.（1996）. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics（K. Kazzazi, & G.
Trauth, Eds.）. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203980057（1st ed.）2.

: MEXT1-1725. 日本 : 開隆堂
文部科学省 . 中学校学習指導要領解説外国語編（2018）
出版 ; 151 ページ .

3.

文部科学省 . 高等学校学習指導要領解説外国語編英語編（2019）日本 : 開隆堂出版 ;231 ページ .

4.

文部科学省 . 中学校学習指導要領（2017）日本 : 開隆堂出版 ; 331 ページ .

5.

文部科学省 . 高等学校学習指導要領（2018）日本 : 開隆堂出版 ; 608 ページ .

6.

American Psychological Association. APA Dictionary of Psychology［Internet］.
（2022）
Washington USA: American Psychological Association;［cited 2022 Mar 1］. Available
from: https://dictionary.apa.org/language-transfer

7.

Nation ISP.（2009）. Teaching ESL/EFL Reading and Writing. Routledge, Taylor & Francis.

8.

Goyvaerts, J. Regular-Expressions.info［Internet］.
（2022）［updated 2021 Aug 12; cited
2022 Mar 1］. Available from: https://www.regular-expressions.info/

9.

Wiltshier, J., Helgesen, M., & Brown, S.（2018）. English Firsthand: Success（M. Rost, Ed.）.
Pearson Education South Asia Pte Limited.

10. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages（CEFR）. Strasbourg（2022）
Cedex FRANCE: Council of Europe; Available from: https://www.coe.int/en/web/commoneuropean-framework-reference-languages/level-descriptions

27

29

From Engineering Ethics to Robot Ethics1
HONDA Kojiro*

1. Introduction
At the 2005 Aichi Expo, the presence of humanoid robots alongside Japanese booths attracted
attention from visitors worldwide. The technology displayed in the form of brilliant two-legged
ambulatory robots or robots that could make facial expressions identical to humans surprised many
people.
Since then, however, Japan has fallen behind other developed countries in robot development.
Why? One of the reasons for this would be the delay in examining the various ethical issues that one
can expect in the social implementation of robots. As a result, the necessary rules for using robots
have not progressed. If humanities researchers and science and engineering researchers can work
together to stimulate ethical debate, it may encourage the birth of robotic products. This paper aims
to provide some topics for collaboration.2
Section 2 verifies the validity of the framework of the existing field of engineering ethics byexamining the safety of industrial robots. Section 3 investigates the trends related to robotic products’
success in the advancing field of everyday life. Section 4 discusses the possibility that introducing
robots into everyday life may give rise to ethical issues one did not previously question concerningindustrial robots. Section 5 investigates the need to intensify the discussion on robot ethics to expand
the future robotic product market.
2. Industrial Robots and Existing Engineering Ethics
Thus far, they have primarily manufactured robots for shouldering the “labour” of humans. As the*1

Division of General Education（Medical Humanities）（Accepted on October 3, 2022）

The original Japanese version of this article was published in Society and Ethics,（Shakai to Rinri）
No. 28（Nanzan University, Institute of Social Ethics, 2013）with the title "Kougaku-rinri To Robotrinri" . The autor made revisions to the original paper.
2
When asked about the reason for the delay in the development of products such as the householdvacuum cleaner “Roomba,” a technician from Panasonic replied, “We have the technology” in astrong tone. However, regarding the reason for not commercializing it, he explained that “100%safety cannot be ensured.” “For example, in case of accidents such as ‘a cleaning robot collides withthe family Buddhist altar and a candle falls, resulting in a fire,’ ［a‘ robot］falls down the stairs andcollides with a person at the bottom,’ or［a robot］moves into the path of a toddler who is walking
and the baby falls down’ the company will be held responsible for a major liability”［Abe, 2012］.
If consumers are not willing to accept a cetain level of risk, the company fears that there might beserious liability issues, and it is therefore hesitant to market robotic products. In the future, in thecase of the development of humanoid robots too, this problem might resurface. There is thus a needto reach a consensus between the manufacturer and the consumer about the risks and conveniencesof robotics. Therefore, initiatiting a discussion about ethical issues related to robotics is essential.

HONDA Kojiro

30

word “robot,” which is derived from the Czech word “robota”（forced labour）,3 suggests, robots weredeveloped as labour machines. Furthermore, after World War II, amid the full-scale automation ofindustries worldwide, the role of industrial robots increased day by day. In the 1980s, Japan acquireda leading share worldwide in developing industrial robots, and it can be said that Japan was at theforefront of producing robots.
However, in the shadow of that spectacular advancement, numerous accidents occurred. The firsthuman death by a robot on record occurred in Flat Rock, Michigan, in 1979, when a 25-year-old
factory worker was killed in an accident at a Ford Motor Company plant. While the employee wasgathering parts in a storage facility, a robot arm struck him in the head, killing him instantly［Kravets,
2010］. In the legal settlement that followed, it was found that safety features were missing, such as
an alarm that sounded when the robot arm was nearby.
The first Japanese “Killer Robot” case to draw widespread attention occurred at a Kawasaki Heavy
Industries Akashi plant in Hyogo Prefecture on July 4, 1981. A 37-year-old factory worker climbed
over the intrusion prevention fence to check a malfunction with a robot and accidentally pressed abutton that activated the powerful robot arm, which pushed him into mobile grinding gear equipment
and killed him. “Entry Forbidden” was written on the fence, and a mechanism was establishedwherein the power supply would automatically stop if someone opened the wall at the time ofprotection inspection. This accident occurred despite established safety measures［The Deseret
News, 1981］.
［The Economist, 2006］
What are the characteristics of industrial robots, and where do the dangers lie?
Kodaira（2010）highlights the following three points:（1）robots are programmable;（2）robots arehighly versatile due to their capability of making a broad range of movement;（3）uncertainty about
the present situation can be addressed through instruction. The primary characteristics of industrialuse robots relate to their versatility. Through the use of a single robot, it is possible to make that
Robot perform various tasks. Furthermore, because it is possible to change the programmingof the action, the action settings can be fine-tuned to suit the actual installation, even when the
Robot is performing the same work. Due to these characteristics, industrial robots are convenient;
nevertheless, the fact that robots’ movements are difficult to predict and understand ideally meansthat this is a source of risk. The form of their movements differs, depending on the situation, evenwith friendly robots.
Furthermore, it is typically necessary to “teach” robots how to perform their work. In such a case,humans must work near the Robot, but this is an inherently high-risk activity. The majority of humandeaths by industrial-use robots have occurred while the human was working near a robot（1）while
repairing breakdowns or（2）while performing a system start-up［Kodaira, 2010］.
Preventive measures that can ultimately prevent accidents with industrial-use robots include“spatially isolating” robots, meaning that no one may enter a secure guarded area during automatic3

A n o t h e r o r i g i n i s a l s o s a i d t o b e t h e w o r d ro b o t n i k（ w o r k e r ）f r o m t h e S l o v a klanguage（Cf.［Nishiyama., 2011］.
）

From Engineering Ethics to Robot Ethics
operation. Specifically, fences and other barriers are used to enclose a robot’s range of motion. If
these fences are opened, the power supply is cut, and the Robot ceases movement. In addition,“temporal isolation,” or the practice of stopping machinery while humans are at work nearby, evenoutside the secure area, is an adequate safety precaution［Shiga, 2010］.
While these isolation-based safety precautions are adequate, humans must come near robots whengiving instruction and during maintenance inspections. The following safeguards have been adopted
to prevent accidents in such cases.
1)

Structure robots so that only those certified through education and training can approach
them.

2)

Structure robots such that no one can approach them unless they are put into a special modethat reduces their energy and speed.

3)Structure robots such that they can only move when the operator intentionally moves in acertain way, as with a teach pendant.

4)

Structure robots are mechanically stopped when their moving parts exceed a certain speed.

Adopting these strategies when robots are designed can guarantee safety for humans who work
close to robots［Mukaidono, 2009］.
These safety measures realize the way of thinking within the existing field of engineering ethics,
which values public safety, health, and welfare most highly.4 And the design of industrial robots
reflects this way of thinking to a considerable degree.
If robots advance into the domestic sphere in the coming years, we cannot keep them fenced
up. If such progress is made, contact between humans and robots will become more frequent.
Thus, devising new safety precautions has become necessary to avoid accidents. In recent studies,significant efforts have been made to instil “passive flexibility” in robots, meaning that whenhumans and robots come into contact, the existence of a mechanism for absorbing shocks will
prevent accidents from becoming severe. To that end, it is essential to give the Robot some physicalflexibility by using soft, pliable materials on its various joints and surfaces［Sugano, 2008］.
These safety measures are already being applied in wearable robotics, quickly entering ourlives. Sankai et al.’s group at Tsukuba University has started installing wearable “HAL” robots
in rehabilitation centres［Nakajima, 2011］. When humans wear a robot to enhance their strength,
one potential risk is “overburdened joints.” Depending on the degree of this overburden, one canimagine injury to humans, resulting in broken bones, dislocations, bruises to muscles and tendons,
inflammation, etc. To prevent such harm from occurring, HAL has mechanical safety features,such as（1）the adoption of an actuator whose maximum torque/angular velocity does not exceed
the torque/angular velocity that the human body can tolerate; and（2）the installation of mechanicalstoppers adjusts to the range that the human body allows. And it also has functional safety features
4Cf）ABET Code of Ethics, Fundamental Canon 1.（“Engineers shall hold paramount the safety,
health, and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties”）. http://sites.bsyse.
wsu.edu/pitts/be120/Handouts/codes.htm

31

HONDA Kojiro

32

and output limitations on torque/angular velocity. In addition to these safeguards, the expertisethat has been employed in the existing international safety certifications IEC60601-1（Article 3）,
regarding medical equipment, and ISO10328（Article 7）, regarding artificial legs, has proven to be
helpful［Sankai, Nabeshima, Kawamoto, 2011］.
As described above, the safety measures developed for industrial robots and other areas will
benefit the future of robot development. If considered in this sense, it is not too much to claim thatexisting ideologies of engineering ethics will continue to play an essential role in robot developmenton the shop floor.
3. Development of Robot Engineering with an Eye on 2050
How will robot engineering, which began in industrial robot development, develop in the future?
The Technological Strategy Report on Creating a Robot Society in the 21st Century, issued in 2001
by the Japan Robot Association, estimated that the market for robots would extend into the lifestyle,health and welfare, public safety（disasters, etc.）, biotech, and manufacturing sectors, becoming
an $80 billion industry by 2025. It was predicted that approximately half of that figure would bemonopolized by robotic products for the “domestic sphere.” Compared to the current reality, therobot market has not expanded as smoothly as predicted. Still, this prediction was made immediately
after the beginning of the 21st century, and a large amount of the national budget has been invested
accordingly. In other words, although examples of the development of actual products remain rare,
the efforts have sped up the development of robot technologies capable of operating in the domestic
sphere at the level of basic research at the start of this century.
In 2007, the Japan Robot Association created an academic roadmap for engineering fields withan eye toward society in 2050. The social issues discussed in this document that cannot be ignored
include（1）the decreasing birthrate and the increasing ageing population: the population of young
workers is decreasing at the same time as it is proving difficult to support a large proportion of
the elderly population;（2）energy problems: petroleum resources are being exhausted, and lowconsumption/high-efficiency equipment must be designed; and（3）environmental problems: global
warming and carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced. Furthermore, three concepts—comfort（C）,
safety（S）, and green（G）—were proposed as common ideals（CSG）to help solve these problems.
Because robotics is primarily involved with（C）, it is expected to fulfil an essential role in assisting
Japan to adapt to the problems caused by a decreasing birthrate and an ageing population［Uchiyama,
Kaneko, Kunii, 2008］.
Under these circumstances, the Robotics Society of Japan, the Japanese Society for Artificial
Intelligence, and the Japan Ergonomics Society have collaborated to create an academic roadmap
in the field of robotics on commission from the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry（METI）.
“Robot Challenge 30” was presented as the theme.5 The report’s contents reflect the technological5

The report can be read at the site of the Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence. http://www.aigakkai.or.jp/about-us/activity/rloadmap/（accessed 8/25/2022）.

From Engineering Ethics to Robot Ethics
developments that active robotics engineers aim for. This roadmap is organized around threethemes drawn from the past 100 years of robotics history:（1）social systems and robotic
intelligence;（2）systems for helping people; and（3）human and machine integration（human
expansion）. In other words, it paints a vision of the next 50 years in which we will see that robots
increasingly approximate the human form, eventually merging with humans altogether. Naturally, inthis trend, it has been pointed out that it is necessary to consider the perspective of “robot ethics” on
how to build relationships between humans and robots. And there is also a need to discuss “cyborg
ethics”［Sato, Mizoguchi, Tomita, Uchiyama, 2008］.
Turning our attention to the 30 Robot Challenges, we find the following:

Challenge 9 – self-reference, evaluation, and repair systems: the development of “meta-cognitive” functions, that is, the awareness, interpretation, and evaluation of the contents of
one’s cognition, condition, and behaviour, and based on this, the ability to revise and repair
oneself, maintaining consistency, lawfulness, and homeostasis

Challenge 11 – cognitive development systems: the elucidation and realization of systems
capable of improving their cognitive ability and achievement while interacting with eachother and the outside world

Challenge 13 – the emergence and understanding of others’ goals and intentions: the ability
to understand the intents and purposes of others is dependent upon the ability to understandthe meaning of others’ actions and to make independent judgments about behaviour in service of humans



Challenge 15 – autonomy: the ability to act by oneself without external commands and rules.
We will realize the development of the power to decide what to do and work with self-discipline, having all of “understanding of the meaning of information”, “recognition of importance”, “emergence and understanding of purpose/intention”, and “self-reference/evaluation/
restoration.”

Challenge 21 – BCI/BMI/Cyborg: direct integration of the human brain and computer ormachine as an interface between humans and robots to allow more flexible interaction. Furthermore, by directly integrating humans and machines, human abilities will not only be
supplemented but also expanded

Challenge 23 – robots for community building: development of robots to support the revitalization and maintenance of community and assist in the formation of the community bybringing people together through some commonality



Challenge 30 – intelligent space: development of technologies capable of understanding intentional behaviour from the use of all goods used in one’s daily living space, grasping social
movements, and helping people and society

Such technologies are an index that reflects trends over 50 years, including many that are still quite
far from realization. However, it can be said that such a trend creates the possibility that our society
will slowly change in the direction of the movement, whether or not it will be realized in 50 years.

33

HONDA Kojiro

34

Now, if researchers are aiming at the technologies considered above, can we say that there will be
no problems bringing them about as long as mere “safety” can be assured? The values expressed in
the existing engineering ethics framework emphasize public safety and the protection of health andwell-being. Based on this expertise, ensuring safety should be considered a matter of course in robot
development. However, the possibility exists that various ethical problems that do not fit into thisframework will arise from robot development. Therefore, let us next turn our attention to these.
4. New Ethical Problems Raised by Robot Engineering
European robot engineers were the first to examine the impact of robot engineering on society.
Inspired by the Pugwash Conferences, the first international conference on robot ethics was convened
in 2004 by Gianmarco Veruggio, an Italian researcher at the Scuola di Robotica in Genoa.6,7 A
chronological list of meetings on robot ethics that have been conducted at his initiative is as follows:8
1.

First International Symposium on Roboethics Sanremo, Italy, January 30–31, 2004

2.

Fukuoka World Robot Declaration, Fukuoka, Japan, February 25, 2004

3.

IEEE-RAS established a Technical Committee（TC）on Robo-Ethics, 2004

4.

ICRA 2005 Workshop on Roboethics, Barcelona, Spain, April 18, 2005

5.

Italy-Japan 2005 Workshop “The Man and the Robot: Italian and Japanese approaches”,
Waseda, Tokyo, Japan, September 7–8, 2005

6.

EURON Atelier on Roboethics, Genoa, Italy, February 27–March 3, 2006

7.

ICRA 2007 Workshop on Roboethics, Rome, Italy, April 14, 20078.

ECAP07 track “Philosophy and Ethics of Robotics”, Twente, The Netherlands, June 21–23,
2007

9.

International Symposium “Robotics: New Science,” Accademia di Lincei, Rome, February
20, 2008

10. ICRA 2009 Workshop on Roboethics, Rome, Italy, April 17, 2009.
11. SPT2009 Track “Robots, cyborgs and artificial life,” University of Twente, the Netherlands,
July 8–10, 2009
12. ICRA 2011 Fourth Workshop on Roboethics, Shanghai, China, May 13, 2011
Themes explored in these early discussions include（1）sociocultural diversity concerning robot
acceptance;（2）privacy: disclosure and unauthorized use of personal information;（3）robotics
and labour: the impact of revolutionary technological innovations on employment;（4）robots
and national defence: the ethical meaning of “killing machines” and machines as accessories tomurder;（5）entertainment robots: robotic pets and the issues raised by individual control overemotional consumer robots;（6）ubiquitous computing: omnipresent robots;（7）bio-robotics;（8）sex
and robotics: robot partner;（9）religion and intelligent machines;（10）robots as intellectual
The English title is The Institute of Intelligent Systems for Automation in Genoa.
7
Pugwash conference: An international conference convened in 1957 by scientists seeking theabolition of nuclear weapons.
8
Refer to the Official Roboethics Website, www.roboethics.org（accessed 8/25/2022）.
6

From Engineering Ethics to Robot Ethics
beings: problem of robot rights, robotic slavery in society;（11）responsibilities of the profession;and（12）social responsibility for harm, personal and corporate accountability, and legal liability.
The above are topics about robots that have not yet been realized; some may view them as anextension of science fiction. Should the discussion of as-yet-unrealized technologies be considered
unproductive? Numerous theorists have criticized the extant literature on engineering ethics regarding
this point. In an overview discussing responsibility, the Dutch legal philosopher Bovens divides theconcept into passive responsibility and active responsibility. The former refers to the responsibility of
responding to the past-oriented question, mainly “Why did you do that?” after an accident or incident.
Conversely, the latter is a way of responding positively to what is to come, implying a responsibility
primarily to answer the future-oriented question, “What should be done?”［Bovens, 1998, p.27］. Van
de Poel, a Dutch science and technology studies（STS）theorist, and Verbeek, a Dutch philosopherof technology, have indicated that engineering ethics has been biased toward the passive form of
responsibility［Van de Poel & Verbeek, 2006］.
In other words, in existing engineering ethics, the crucial point is to learn from accidents that haveoccurred in the past. Engineers are responsible for quickly sounding the alarm when they notice thatsociety is being exposed to dangers created by technology［Verbeek, 2011, p.4］
. Indeed, Verbeek et
al. do not dismiss the passive form of responsibility outright but claim that it alone is insufficient.
They argue that in thinking about the ethics of technology, one must consider a future-oriented formof active responsibility. Specifically, by introducing the concept of “design ethics” when designingartefacts and evaluating how the artefacts will affect our daily lives, they say that we should decide
the designs of artefacts in advance to improve our quality of life（QOL）in the context of life.
Furthermore, Verbeek（2011）posits that artefacts should be conceived to guide us toward ethicalbehaviour.
The general idea of design ethics applies to the design of all artefacts; however, this way of
thinking has become especially necessary in producing robots. There is no denying that when robots
begin to appear in society, their presence will impact social life. For example, with a robotic petor friend, a possibility exists that it might intervene in our emotional lives. The design of robots
that play such roles will have to consider not only their physical impact on humans but also their
psychological impact. In this case, it is essential to study the types of physical appearances, gestures,and facial expressions that give humans a sense of security and then employ them in the design.
In addition, if humanoid robots that are being developed by so many Japanese roboticists begin to
be introduced into society, then examining the sort of impact of the use of such robots on humanrelations will be essential.9 For example, a recent study has confirmed that human infants will
Honda debuted a bipedal humanoid robot, “ASIMO,” in 2000. Following this, many companies,
such as Sony, Toyota Motor Corporation, and Victor Company of Japan, announced humanoid
prototypes. However, none of these technologies has been commercialized as of yet. Among
roboticists, many have criticized the humanoid form as being inefficient. For example, Colin
Angle of iRobot, the company that developed the “Roomba” cleaning robot, imagines groups ofspecialized robots providing support for various household chores, instead of a single, generalpurpose humanoid robot that manages the home（cf.［Ito, 2005］.
［The Economist, 2006］
）

9

35

HONDA Kojiro

36

actively follow the gaze of a humanoid robot［Meltzoff, Brooks, Shon, & Rao, 2010］. Human infants
follow the eye of their parents and focus on the same things as their parents to learn the roles playedby things that appear in their life and to understand their positions. If robots become part of daily life
as social actors, the chances are high that they will then become models for the next generation. In
other words, children might be able to learn from robots. If that becomes the case, robot engineers
will no longer be considered designers of simple machines but engineers of social actors whose
behaviour will be the model for the next generation. Until today, it has not been necessary to consider
such issues in the design of artefacts.
Already a concern in this context is how the introduction of babysitter robots will affect children’sdevelopment. Artificial nursery experiments with rhesus monkeys produced significant social
dysfunction compared to monkeys raised by birth mothers. It will be necessary to regulate or makerobots learn the code of ethics of babysitting and the human rights code of children.［Sharkey, 2008］.
As described above, it is essential in robot design to adopt design ethics that considers social
effects. This approach must have the same degree of importance as the guarantee of safety has had in
the past.
Make no mistake: the problem of what behaviour to instil in robots and just how powerful tomake them are at the center of the ethical challenges raised by robots. However, this focus alone isinsufficient. Our behaviour toward robots will also likely be a problem. For example, Ron Arkin of
the Georgia Institute of Technology asks whether we will still sound persuasive while kicking a robot
dog when we tell our children, “You mustn’t kick（real）dogs!”［The Economist, 2006］. This concern
is all the more applicable to humanoid robots. It is not hard to imagine that the creation of a social
environment in which the abuse of humanoid robots is common would soon affect how humans treat
one another. Thus, examining the type of relationships we want to have with robots when they are
introduced is essential［Chatila, 2011］.
Henrik Christensen of Sweden’s Royal Institute of Technology has argued that “safety, security,and sex” are important matters of concern. He has argued that because there are already humans
who try to have sex with blow-up dolls, it should not come as a surprise when humans begin to havesexual relations with robots in the future.10 In this case, should the sale of sex dolls in the shape ofchildren be legally allowed? While the possibility exists that the use of such dolls by those with apropensity for sexually abusing children could be called “therapy,” it is pretty likely that many will
criticize the notion that such products merely fulfil innocent fantasies. These social problems could
arise with the development of humanoid robots［The Economist, 2006］.
If robots come to have sensation, judgment, and the ability to behave autonomously, they could
cause complex problems in direct proportion to their degree of autonomy. They could contain
actual cases of robots causing harm to people. If such incidents occur, would the legal system, as
it has existed until now, be able to issue judgments on such cases? Is it possible to force robots toacknowledge their criminal responsibility and atone for their sins? If this cannot be done, then it is10

Regarding this issue, please see the detailed discussion in Rena Saijo’s essay in this special issue.

From Engineering Ethics to Robot Ethics
unclear where the blame would lie: should it be with the designer, the manufacturer, the seller, thesupervisor, or perhaps the individual who instructed the Robot as a social actor in the ways of polite
society?11 Therefore, introducing robots into society could be hazardous if this decision cannot be
examined and a social consensus achieved before an accident occurs. In addition, some observers
have argued that introducing “robot insurance” against the risk of injury and damages to users mustalso be examined［Yamada, 2008］.
An example of social risk is the possibility that robots, which were initially developed to copewith the declining birthrate and ageing population, will take on the jobs of human beings. It
would therefore be necessary to incorporate laid-off workers into other fields in anticipation of
expected job losses. If this cannot be done, the use of robots might negatively impact the economic
environment［Oeki, 2008］. Moreover, others have contended that engineers should be actively
involved in creating business plans to prevent the misuse of robot engineering by the military.
Sankai（2011）of Tsukuba University argues that instead of being a “for-profit business,” robot
engineering should be a “social business” that works to support society and improve social welfare.
Numerous other issues also deserve to be examined; however, they cannot all be consideredhere due to space constraints. Thus, the last matter we will discuss is what will be necessary forengineering ethics that seriously consider Verbeek’s concept of active responsibility. He claims
that it is insufficient to consider only safety in the design of artefacts and that one must consider,
beforehand, the various impacts of these artefacts on society and investigate designs that will prevent
accidents. This concept of “design ethics” becomes especially important in fields of robot engineeringthat are expected to impact the community significantly.
Furthermore, fostering debates on the ethical issues related to individuals who use robots isessential to facilitate the acceptance of robot technologies in society. Because there is a highprobability that robot-human relations will be reflected in human-human relationships, this raises
the question of whether we can treat robots like other “mere objects” with which we are familiar indaily life. There needs to be a discussion concerning the relationship between humans and robots that
includes the fundamental question of whether robots should be subject to moral considerations insociety.
In addition, the ethics of raising robots as social actors must be considered once they have acquireda high level of autonomy and the ability to learn. Moreover, developing a fixed moral perspective
on robots before they are introduced into society is essential if they are to engage in smooth social
relationships with humans.
In sum, the process of societal acceptance of robotic technologies requires an examinationof（1）ethical principles that should be built into robots;（2）the ethics of robot manufacturers;（3）theethics of robot users（and consumers）; and（4）the ethics of robot teachers. Thus, a new framework is
required that integrates all of these into “robot ethics.”
11

The concept of “the responsibility of robot educators” comes from Prof. Uesugi Shigeru（Facultyof Science and Engineering, Waseda University）.

37

HONDA Kojiro

38

5. Promotion of the Robot Industry and a Robot Ethics Charter
Kukita（2009）clarifies what the word “robot ethics” means to different people. According to him,
the term “robot ethics” implies all of the following:1)

the ethics of manufacturing robots: the ethics of robot engineers2)

the ethics that robots should obey: the ethics of robots themselves

3)

ethics about robots: consumer ethics.

In addition to these aspects,
4)

the ethics of educating robots: robot trainer ethics

should be added.
Future debates on these areas of robot ethics should not be limited solely to the research community.
Researchers, manufacturers, and citizens（consumers）must be included in these discussions. Let us
consider the reasons for this.
To expand the market for robotic
products, “many users of the same quality”
must seek access to it. 12 However, it isexceedingly difficult to facilitate this in ashort period. To achieve success rapidly, as
occurred in the automotive field and which
took nearly 100 years, quickly developing
a social consensus on various issues related
to robotic products is necessary［Tanie,
2004］.

Article 1
Humans should not use robots if the human-robot
labor system is incompatible with the highest legal
and technical standards for ethics and safety.
Article 2
Robots must perform roles corresponding to theirform and always respond to humans.
Article 3
Robots should be given adequate autonomy todefend their own existence in accordance with
their conditions, as long as their self-defense does
not cause them to violate the first two articles andmanagement can be smoothly transferred to anothersubject.
Table 1. Beyond Asimov’s Three Laws

12

Tanie’s terminology can be interpreted to mean that the circulation of a certain product depends
on a group of consumers sharing clearly defined knowledge about a product. If the belief in thesafety and convenience of a given product cannot be fostered among a large group of consumers,
consumption will lag behind production and the industry’s profits will falter. In areas where amarket already exists, it is perfectly acceptable for engineers to improve product performance;
however, because a market for robotic products does not yet exist, any number of productperformance improvements will not necessarily lead to commercialization（Tanie, 2004: 10–11）.

From Engineering Ethics to Robot Ethics
To promote robotics, wemust develop new products
and consumers simultaneously,
and a “Robot Ethics Charter”
will also be required here. The
content of the Robot Ethics
Charter must reflect the overall
discussion of robot ethics,
particularly the guidelines thatprovide specific guidelines
regarding the ethical elementsthat robots should protect, how
to manufacture robots, andhow to interact with robots.
In addition to these elements,
aspects of commitments to beshared between researchers,
manufacturers, and consumers
are essential. Publishing such a
document and updating it fromtime to time will help deepen
the debate on ethical issues
related to robotics technology
and reach a consensus on how

Article 1（Objective）The objective of the robot ethics charteris to affirm an anthropocentric ethical model that ensures thecoexistence and coprosperity of humans and robots.
Article 2（Principle of Cooperation between Humans andRobots）Humans and robots should protect the sanctity of eachother’s lives, information, and robotic ethics.
Article 3（Human ethics）When manufacturing and using robots,humans always have to decide how to judge right and wrong.
Article 4（Robot ethics）Robots, as friends, assistants, andpartners to humans must always obediently follow their orders
and never harm a human.
Article 5（Manufacturer ethics）Robot manufacturers must create
robots that can be recycled, are obligated to protect information,and respect the sanctity of human life.
Article 6（User ethics）Robot users should respect robots as theywould a human friend and should not abuse them nor illegally
modify them.
Article 7（Implementation agreement）The government and local
authorities must implement effective steps to realize the spirit of
the charter.
South Korean Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy（MOTIE）
August 29, 2007
Table 2. Draft of the Korean Robot Ethics Charterto address them.
The METI’s “Guidelines for Guaranteeing Next Generation Robot Safety”（2007）already exists
as a guide of ethics for robot manufacturing.13 These guidelines emphasize the maintenance of safety
13

Let us introduce a portion of the contents here.
Guidelines for ensuring safety in next-generation robots
http://www.meti.go.jp/policy/mono_info_service/Mono/robot/PDF/guideline.PDF（accessed
8/25/2022）
2.3 Implementation of safety measures by manufacturers
2.3.1 Safety measures to reduce the risk of next-generation robots introduced by manufacturers
should be implemented in the following order:（1）Make safety an essential part of the design.
（2）For risks that cannot be reduced to an acceptable degree by inherently safe design, safety
protection and additional protection measures are required.
（3）As for risks that cannot be reduced to an acceptable degree by inherently safe design, safety
protections, or additional protective measures, information regarding management, sales, and use
must be provided to managers, sellers, and users.
2.3.2 When manufacturers undertake safety measures, they must take care not to create newsources of danger, hazardous situations, or increase the level of risk.

39

40

HONDA Kojiro
but mention the social aspects related to the design of robots. The guidelines were also produced forthe benefit of manufacturers and did not reference consumers’ attitudes.
The three principles for robot engineering discussed in Asimov’s science fiction novel I, Robot,
are pretty famous as ethical principles that robots should follow.14 Asimov created these principles
assuming that robots can become moral actors, but some individuals perceive a great danger in giving
robots a strong sense of autonomy. To clarify their position that final responsibility should always lie
with a human, they have proposed three principles of their own（Table 1）.
［Murphy Woods, 2009］
Korea, aiming to have robotic products installed in every home by 2020, formulated a robot ethics
charter in 2007. They have only released a draft, but from the contents, one can see that they are
significantly focusing on the ethical balance between producer, consumer, and the Robot（Table 2）.15
One might expect that formulating this code of ethics will generate a nationwide debate. There is
no way to measure the extent to which Korea’s Robot Charter can be considered a success except
to judge it after it has developed; however, efforts like this have great significance as processes for
introducing the latest technologies into society.
In Japan, the time has come to create an environment where citizens can actively judge whether
to allow the introduction of the fruits of the progress in robotics into society. As robotic technologies
diffuse into society, procedures for creating a social consensus among roboticists, manufacturers, andcitizens（consumers）on the relevant ethical issues will be required. Specifically, it would be adequate
to create a Japanese version of a robot ethics charter that provides a platform for these three parties todebate the issues. Researchers have already begun taking adequate measures; however, no steps havebeen taken to incorporate public opinion.16 The authors of this paper are part of a research group that
2. 5 Record of risk reduction measures（documentation）
Manufacturers must record steps taken to reduce the risks posed by next-generation robots basedon the contents of safety precautions implemented according to these guidelines and the results ofrisk assessments of next-generation robot manufacturing.
2.6 Next-generation robot risk management system and maintenance2.6.1 When critical failures on safety and injuries caused by next-generation robots occur,
manufacturers must promptly set up a system capable of appropriately responding by expanding
injury prevention measures.
2.6.2 When critical failures on safety and injuries caused by next-generation robots occur,
manufacturers must record details of the accident, the injury, and response.
14
The Three Laws of Robotics（Asimov, 2004）
The First Law – A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being
to come to harm.
The Second Law – A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings, except where suchorders would conflict with the First Law.
The Third Law – A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflictwith the First or Second Laws.
15
Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics（Accessed: 8/16/2022）
16
Regarding domestic initiatives, Chiba University deserves a special mention for their involvementwith the formulation of the robot charter. Using Asimov’s Three Laws as a foundation, they cameup with a unique position.
C h i b a U n i v e r s i t y R o b o t C h a r t e r（ 2 0 0 7 ）h t t p : / / w w w. c h i b a - u . a c . j p / o t h e r s / t o p i c s /article2007/20071127.html（accessed 5/25/2013）
Article 1（code of conduct）

From Engineering Ethics to Robot Ethics
works with robot engineers to develop a robot ethics charter sometime in the future.17
6. Conclusion
In this paper, we examined the effectiveness of existing engineering ethics considering current
developments in robotics. Of course, the emphasis on safety in engineering ethics as it exists now
is necessary for robot engineering. However, the ethical problems raised by the products that will
come from robot engineering soon are not likely to be fully addressed by merely guaranteeing safety.
If the market for robotic products expands, then a process for developing a social consensus amongroboticists, manufacturers, and citizens（consumers）regarding the various ethical problems raisedby robotics will be necessary. Furthermore, a forum for debates between experts and citizens must
be created to achieve this consensus. In addition, a tentative plan for starting these debates is also
necessary. We argue that the time has come for Japan to begin making an effort toward establishing arobot ethics charter.

This charter is intended to provide ethical prescriptions for all those involved in robot education,
research, and development at Chiba University.
Article 2（human livelihood）
Everyone involved in robot education, research, and development at Chiba University must
conduct their education, research, and development for peaceful purposes and the benefit of human
livelihood.
Article 3（prevention of unethical use）
Robot educators, researchers, and developers at Chiba University are integrating measures into
robots to prevent their unethical and illegal use.
Article 4（contribution of educators, researchers, and developers）
Robot educators, researchers, and developers at Chiba University shall comply not only with
Asimov’s Three Laws but also with all of the articles of this charter.
Article 5（permanent compliance）
Robot educators, researchers, and developers at Chiba University Pledge to respect and protect thespirit of this charter even when off-campus.
17
The Philosophy of Robot Applications Research Group（Minao Kukita, Nobutsugu Kanzaki,
Masahiko Igashira, Shinya Oie, Shinpei Okamoto, Rena Saijo, Kojiro Honda）, 2013 Academic
Research Assistance Grant-in-aid Selection, Basic Research（C）Subject Number 25370033,
Subject Title: “Creation of Ethics for Robots based on Engineering Concerns”（Research
representative: Kojiro Honda）.

41

HONDA Kojiro

42

References
Abe, Sachiko.（2/11/2012）.
Other Side of Business］Japan’s Consumer Electronics Companies［The
Can’t Make the “Rumba”: The Weakness of Domestic Manufacturing is Right Here!! The Sankei
Shinbun and Sankei Digital, page: http://sankei.jp.msn.com/west/west_economy/news/120211/
wec12021118000001-n1.htm（accessed 2013 / 05 / 22）.
Asimov Isaac.（2004）. I, Robot［Standard Edition］.
Fusa, translator）Tokyo: Simon & Schuster.
（Obi
Arai, Hirohiko.（2008）. Issues in Academic Robotics Research. University of Tsukuba Graduate
School of Intelligent Interaction Technologies NPO Responsible Speech Guarantee Association,
Lecture Association. Tsukuba City: National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science andTechnology.
Arkin, C. Ronald.（2009）. Governing Lethal Behavior in Autonomous Robots. NW: Chapman &Hall/CRC, Taylor & Francis Group.
Bovens, Mark.（1998）. The Quest for Responsibility: Accountability and Citizenship in Complex
Organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chatila, Raja.（2011）. Robots and Humans: Some Ethical Issues. Cybernics Technical Reports, 7-14.
Ganapati, Priya.（7/22/2009）. Robo-Ethicists Want to Revamp Asimov’s 3 Laws. Wired.com.
Hirose, Michitaka.（2010）. Evolution of Robots through IT Integration. Journal of the Robotics
Society of Japan, 28（3）, 242-245.
Honda, Kojiro.（2013）. Engineering Ethics and Robot Ethics（Kougaku-rinri To Robot-rinri）. Societyand Ethics（Shakai To Rinri）, 28, 21-36.
Ingram, Brandon, Jones Daniel, Lewis Andrew, Richards Matthew, Rich Charles, Schachterle
Lance.（2010）. A Code of Ethics for Robotics Engineers. Human-Robot Interaction（HRI）, 2010 5th
ACM/IEEE International Conference, 103-104.
IRIE.（2006）. Ethics in Robotics IRIE Vol.6.（Rafael Capurro, Thomas Hausmanninger, Karsten
Weber, Felix Weil, eds.）International Review of Information Ethics.
Iseda Tetsuji.（2003）. Looking at robots from the viewpoint of science and technology. “Robots andLiterature” Symposium. http://tiseda.Sakura.ne.jp/works/robot.html.
Ito, Kenji.（2/2/2005）. As expected, R&D jobs trend analysis laboratory - analysis theme: Humanoid
Robot. Engineer life support site Tech Institute, page: http://next.rikunabi.com/tech/docs/ct_s03600.
jsp?p=000463（accessed 5/23/2013）.
Japan Robot Association.（2001）. Technology strategy report for creating a robotic society in the 21st
century. Japan Robot Association.
Kravets, David.（January 25, 2010）“Jan 25, 1979: Robot Kills Human.” Wired.com.
Kukita, Minao.（2009）. The Possibility of Robot Ethics. Kyoto University Literature Department
Philosophy Laboratory Bulletin: Prospectus, 11.
Lovegren, Stefan.（3/16/2007）. Robot Code of Ethics to Prevent Android Abuse, Protect Humans.
National Geographic News.

From Engineering Ethics to Robot Ethics
Meltzoff, N. Andrew, Brooks Rechele, Shon P. Aaron, Rao P. N. Rajesh.（2010）. “Social” robots are
psychological agents for infants: A test of gaze following. Neural Networks 23, 966-972.
Mukaidono, Masao.（2009）. Contemporary Issues of Technology Safety and Social Acceptability.
Journal of Precision Engineering, 75（9）, 1041-1044.
Murphy R. Robin, Woods D. David.（2009）. Beyond Asimov: The Three Laws of Responsible
Robotics. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 14-20.
Nakajima, Takashi.（2011）. Progress Towards Medical Applications with Robot Suit HAL for Neuromuscular Disease Patients and Expected Clinical Effects. Healthcare Sciences, 60（2）, 130-137.
Nishida, Yoshifumi and Yoichi Motomura.（2008）. The Robotization of Everyday Life. Journal of the
Robotics Society of Japan, 26（7）, 736-737.
Nishiyama, Yoshiyasu.（2011）. Relationship Between Expression and Evolution of Robots in Japan.
Bulletin of Nagoya Zokei University, 151-165.
Oeki, Jun.（2008）. Growth of the Robotics Industry: Challenges and Marketing New Markets. Journalof the Robotics Society of Japan, 26（8）, 866-867.
Ohira, Toshio.（2010）. Dangers and Risk Assessment of Industrial Robots. Symposium on the
Promotion and Establishment of Risk Assessment. Tokyo: Japan Machinery Federation.
Sankai, Yoshiyuki.（2011）. Cybernics and Roboethics. Cybernics Technical Reports: Special Issue on
Roboethics, 3-5.
Sankai, Yoshiyuki and Nabeshima Kota, Kawamoto Hiroaki.（2011）. Safety Technologies in the
Robot Suit HAL. Journal of the Robotics Society of Japan, 29（9）, 780-782.
Sato, Tomomasa and Riichiro Mizoguchi, Yutaka Tomita, Takashi Uchiyama.（2008）. Academic
Roadmap for Robotics in General. Journal of the Robotics Society of Japan, 26（7）, 722-727.
Shachtman, Noah.（10/18/2007）. Robot Cannon Kills 9, Wounds 14. Wired.com.
Sharkey, Noel.（2008）. Computer Science: The Ethical Frontiers of Robotics. Science,
322（5909）1800–1801.
Shibata, Masayoshi.（2008）. Light and Shadow of the Robot Society. Journal of the Robotics Societyof Japan, 26（8）, 864-865.
Shiga, Takashi.（2010）. Risk Assessment Activities on the Production Line. Symposium on the
Promotion and Establishment of Risk Assessment. Tokyo: Japan Machinery Federation.
Sugano, Shigeki.（2008）. Practical Use of a Prototype for Human Symbiotic Robots. Journal of the
Robotics Society of Japan, 26（8）, 860-863.
Tanie, Kazuo.（2004）. Launching the robot market. Toshiba Review, 59（9）, 9–14.
The Deseret News.（12/8/1981）. Killer robot: Japanese worker first victim of technologicalrevolution. The Deseret News.
The Economist.（June 8, 2006）. Trust me. I’m a robot The Economist, page: http://www.economist.
com/node/7001829/print（accessed 2013/05/22）.
Thomson Reuters.（6/7/2007）. South Korea Plans code of ethics for robots. www.reutersreprints.com.
Uchiyama, Takashi & Makoto Kaneko, Yasuharu Kunii.（2008）. Academic Roadmap for Engineering

43

HONDA Kojiro

44--looking ahead to the society of 2050-- Journal of the Robotics Society of Japan, 26（7）, 750-751.
University of Tsukuba.（2011）. Cybernics Technical Reports: Special Issue on Roboethics.
Van de Poel, Ibo, Verbeek Peter-Paul.（2006）. Ethics and Engineering Design. Science, Technology,& Human Values, 31（3）, 223-236.
Verbeek Peter-Paul.（2008）. Cyborg intentionality: Rethinking the phenomenology of humantechnology relations. Phenomenological Cognitive Science（7）, 387-395.
Verbeek Peter-Paul.（2011）. Moralizing Technology: Understanding and Designing the Morality ofThings. Chicago, US: The University of Chicago Press.
Veruggio Gianmarco.（2005）. Roboethics. ETHICBOTS: Kick Off Meeting. Napoli: Scuola di
Robotica.
Veruggio Gianmarco.（2006）. EURON Roboethics Roadmap. Genova: EURON.
Yamada, Yoji.（2008）. Safe Robot Technology for the Future. Journal of the Robotics Society ofJapan, 26（7）, 755-756.
Yamane, Katsu.（2008）. Simulation of All Humans. Journal of the Robotics Society of Japan, 26（7）,746-747.
Yokoi, Hiroshi.（2008）. Cyborg（BMI/BCI）. Journal of the Robotics Society of Japan, 26（7）, 732733.
Yoshiji Toshiro, Ikeda Hiroyasu, Okabe Kohei, and Saito Takeshi.（2012）. Categorical Statements on
Regulatory Reform based on Survey Results and Analysis of Occupational Accidents of Industrial
Robots. Occupational Safety and Health Research, 5（1）, 3-15.

45

金沢医科大学教養論文集投稿規定（令和 3 年 6 月 1 日改訂）

１ 投稿資格は，本学一般教育機構の専任教員である者および，非専任教員で一般教育を担当する者であることとする。
２ 本論文集には，未発表の総説・原著・授業報告・翻訳・書評を掲載する。ただし，その他に編集委員会で認められたものを掲載することができる。
３ 原稿
3.1 原稿は英文とする。
3.2 原稿は Microsoft Word 等を使用し，A4 縦置き，1 頁 86 字×37 行の書式で作成する。標準的なフォント（Century, Times New Roman, Helvetica, Symbol など）［11 ポイント］を使用する。
図表は原則本文原稿に挿入する。
3.3 原稿には通しの頁番号を付ける。
3.4 英文校正及び校閲は，著者が適任者に依頼する。ただし，費用は原則，著者の負担とする。
3.5 原稿は決定稿であること。校正段階での訂正・加筆は誤植もしくは単純エラーのみとし，文章の変更，加筆訂正は認められない。
3.6 原稿は原則として編集委員長宛に email 添付で送付し，併せて，印字原稿 2 部を編集委員長に提出する。
４ 標題・著者・所属
4.1 原稿第 1 頁の冒頭に標題・著者名，同頁の脚注に所属名を記入する。
（例 Medical Humanities）
4.2 著者が一人または同一所属の場合は，著者名の右肩にアステリスク＊を付し，脚注に＊と所属名を記す。
4.3 著者が複数で所属が異なる場合は，著者名の右肩に＊1，＊2 のごとく付し，脚注にそれに対応した所属名を記す。
（例

Medical Humanities＊1

Physical Education）＊2

4.4 責任著者の左肩に○印を付し，脚注に連絡先を記載する。
（例 ＊1○CHUBU Jiro）
4.5 標題は，名詞・形容詞の第１字目を大文字とする。
4.6 著者名は，姓（family name）, 名（given name）の順に記載し，姓をすべて大文字，名の第 1
字目を大文字，第 2 字目以下を小文字とする。
4.7 著者が 2 名の場合，第 1 著者と第 2 著者を and で結ぶ。
（例 CHUBU Jiro and HOKURIKU
Michiko）
4.8 著者が 3 名以上の場合，著者名間をカンマ（，）で区切り，最後の著者の前にカンマ, and を挿入する。
（例 KANAZAWA Hanako, UCHINADA Taro, and IDAI Kenji）

1

46

５ 要旨
5.1 総説・原著には，論文の冒頭に要旨（Abstract）を付する。
5.2 総説・原著以外の原稿は，要旨を省略することができる。
６ 註および文献
6.1 註および文献（引用文献または参考文献）は，論文の末尾に一括して記載する。ただし，長い論文の場合には各章（または編）ごとに末尾にまとめてもよい。
6.2 註は，本文中には通し番号で １），２）（上つき）のように昇順で示す。ただし，同じ註を付する
場合は，本文中で同一番号を用いる。
6.3 文献の表示方法は，原則として以下のＡ方式またはＢ方式とする。ただし，専攻分野においてその特殊性に応じた合理的な方式が定まっている場合は，この限りではない。また，教養論
文集を引用する場合，略称として Mem. Lib. Kanazawa Med. Univ. を使用する。
Ａ方式：註と同じ方式で，文献とその他の註とを統合して記載する。
Ｂ方式：本文中において（MATSUDA, 2005）のごとく記し，論文の末尾に一括して「MATSUDA Hiroo, 2005. Notes on Mannheim Curves. Mem. Lib. Kanazawa
Med. Univ., 33:pp.11-18.」のごとく記載（掲載順序は，姓のアルファベット順とする）。
6.4 論文の引用参照の表示方法は，バンクーバー方式に準ずること。
７ 採否・査読
7.1 原稿の採否は，査読の結果に基づき編集委員会が決定する。
7.2 査読者の選定・依頼は，原則として編集委員会が行う。
８ 著作権
8.1 本論文集の著作権は金沢医科大学に属する。
8.2 本論文集のオンライン化については別の取り決めによって許可する。
９ この規定に定めのない細部については，著者の所属学会の慣習に従うものとする。

2

編集委員
酒

井

大

輔（委員長）井上具規（副委員長）

菊

地

建

至

奥

田

光

一

金沢医科大学教養論文集
Vol.49
令和 4 年 12 月 2 日
発 行

発行

金 沢 医 科 大 学 出 版 局

石川県河北郡内灘町大学 1 丁目 1 番地

印 刷

ハヤシ印刷紙工株式会社

Published by
KANAZAWA MEDICAL UNIVERSITY PRESS
Uchinada, Ishikawa 920-0293, JAPAN