Upload
zorion
View
24
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Microethics & Macroethics in Graduate Education for Scientists & Engineers: Developing & Assessing Instructional Models. Heather E. Canary, University of Utah Joseph R. Herkert, Arizona State University Karin Ellison, Arizona State University Jameson M. Wetmore, Arizona State University. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Microethics & Macroethics in Graduate Education for Scientists & Engineers: Developing & Assessing
Instructional Models
Heather E. Canary, University of Utah
Joseph R. Herkert, Arizona State University
Karin Ellison, Arizona State University
Jameson M. Wetmore, Arizona State University
Acknowledgements
National Science Foundation: NSF/EESE #0832944
ASU Project Team: Joseph Herkert, PI
Heather Canary, Co-PI (U of Utah)
Karin Ellison, Co-PI Jameson Wetmore, Co-PI JoAnn Williams Ira Bennett Brad Allenby Jonathan Posner Joan McGregor Dave Guston
Consultants: Deborah Johnson, Virginia Rachelle Hollander, NAE Nick Steneck, Michigan
Advisory Council: Kristen Kulinowski, Rice Dean Nieusma, RPI Sarah Pfatteicher,
Wisconsin Karl Stephan, Texas State
Project Overview Meet the increasing need to integrate instruction
of microethical issues with instruction of macroethical issues: “Microethics” = moral dilemmas & issues confronting
individual researchers or practitioners “Macroethics” = moral dilemmas & issues collectively
confronting the scientific enterprise or engineering profession
5 Project Goals: Formulate educational outcomes for the integration
of micro- and macroethics in graduate science and engineering education
Develop and pilot different models for teaching micro- and macroethics to graduate students in science and engineering
Assess the comparative effectiveness of the instructional models
Facilitate adoption of the instructional models and assessment methods at other academic institutions
Provide for widespread dissemination of course materials and assessment results in the engineering, science, and ethics education communities.
Instructional Models
Stand-alone course (Science Policy for Scientists and Engineers-1 credit)
Technical course with embedded ethics content (Fundamentals of Biological Design)
Online/Classroom hybrid (Introduction to RCR in the Life Sciences – 1 credit)
Lab group engagement
Participants
Fall 2009 - Spring 2011 (Total N = 81) Embedded Model (N = 21) Stand-Alone Model (N = 14) Hybrid Model (N = 20) Lab Model (N = 2; excluded from analysis) Control Group (N = 26)
Student Status: Undergraduates 5 Transitional 5 Masters 20 PhD 50
Mean Age = 24.23
Males = 55; Females = 26
Participants (cont’d.)
Academic Program: Biodesign 21
Engineering30
Chem/BioChem 9
Biology 12
Other 5
Missing 4
Previous Ethics Instruction: Yes = 36
Previous S. R. Instruction: Yes = 22
First Language: English 54
Chinese 10
Indian Language 8
Spanish 2
Korean 2
Other 5
Ethnicity/Race: White 41
Asian 28
Hispanic 6
African American 3
Other 3
Procedures
Nonequivalent Control-Group Quasi-Experiment
Survey measures of 3 desired learning outcomes: Increased knowledge of relevant standards
Increased ethical sensitivity
Improved ethical reasoning
Engineering & Sciences Issues Test (ESIT) – short
Study-Specific Measures: Knowledge of Relevant Standards (T/F/don’t know)
Ethical Sensitivity (1-5 scale)
Student-Instructor Interaction: Out-of-classroom communication
Classroom climate (supportive/defensive)
Instructor verbal aggressiveness
Instructor verbal assertiveness
Frequency of informal ethics conversations
N2 Scores by Study Group
Group 1 = Embedded; Group 2 = Stand-Alone; Group 3 = Hybrid; Group 5 = Control
Outcomes by Study GroupMeasure Embedded Stand-Alone Hybrid Control
Mean Mean Mean Mean ____________________________________________________
Pretest N2-Score 8.11 7.62 8.39 6.64
Posttest N2-Score 8.70* 8.76* 10.14* 5.18
Pretest Knowledge 11.57 11.43 12.55* 10.42
Posttest Knowledge 12.90* 12.36* 14.40* 10.62
Pretest Ethical 3.44* 3.28 3.36 3.21
Sensitivity
Posttest Ethical 3.48* 3.51* 3.60* 3.21
Sensitivity
____________________________________________________
Note: * indicates significantly higher than Control Group at p < .05 level.
Outcomes by Language Group
Measure Native English Non-Native English Mean Mean N = 54 N = 27
____________________________________________________
Pretest N2-Score* 8.53 5.82
Posttest N2-Score* 9.28 5.12
Pretest Knowledge* 11.83 10.59
Posttest Knowledge* 13.30 10.74
Pretest Ethical 3.40 3.16
Sensitivity*
Posttest Ethical 3.61 3.08
Sensitivity*
____________________________________________________
Note: * indicates significant group differences at the p < .05 level.
Outcomes by Sex Group
Measure Male Female N = 55 N = 26
Mean Mean ______________________________________________
Pretest N2-Score 7.31 8.30
Posttest N2-Score* 7.06 9.72
Pretest Knowledge 11.18 11.92
Posttest Knowledge* 12.02 13.35
Pretest Ethical Sensitivity 3.32 3.31
Posttest Ethical Sensitivity 3.42 3.45 ______________________________________________
Note: * indicates significant difference at the p < .05 level.
Student-Instructor Interaction
Classroom dynamics similar across instructional models:
1 group difference in interaction variables – verbal aggressiveness higher in Embedded than in Hybrid
All other interaction variables statistically the same across instructional groups
Out-of-class communication associations:
With posttest ethical sensitivity (r = -.35, p < ,01)
With posttest ethics discussions with lab directors (r = .34, p < .05)
Frequency of ethics conversations increased:
Significantly with peers
Not significantly with lab directors/PIs
Implications All models were effective in increasing knowledge,
sensitivity, and moral reasoning
Knowledge gains highest in Hybrid Group: Consistent with previous research showing combining instructional modes more effective than either mode on its own
Language differences point to caution when using survey instruments with non-native English speaking samples
Sex differences might be related to language differences
Out-of-classroom communication points to importance of informal conversations and spillover effect of mentoring relationships
Students benefitted from flexible, interdisciplinary team of dedicated educators.
Successful integrative ethics education depends on commitment & cooperation of academic departments.