Transcript ASEE 2012 Presentation - Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes

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:
 First Language:
 Biodesign
21
 English
54
 Engineering
30
 Chinese
10
 Chem/BioChem
 Biology
9
12
 Indian Language
8
 Spanish
2
 Other
5
 Korean
2
 Missing
4
 Other
5
 Previous Ethics
Instruction: Yes = 36
 Previous S. R.
Instruction: Yes = 22
 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 Group
Measure
Embedded
Mean
Stand-Alone
Mean
Hybrid
Control
Mean
Mean
____________________________________________________
Pretest N2-Score
8.11
7.62
Posttest N2-Score
8.70*
8.76*
8.39
6.64
10.14*
5.18
Pretest Knowledge 11.57
11.43
12.55*
10.42
Posttest Knowledge 12.90*
12.36*
14.40*
10.62
3.44*
3.28
3.36
3.48*
3.51*
3.60*
Pretest Ethical
3.21
Sensitivity
Posttest Ethical
3.21
Sensitivity
____________________________________________________
Note: * indicates significantly higher than Control Group at p <
.05 level.
Outcomes by Language Group
Measure
Native English
Mean
N = 54
Non-Native English
Mean
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
3.40
3.16
3.61
3.08
Pretest Ethical
Sensitivity*
Posttest Ethical
Sensitivity*
____________________________________________________
Note: * indicates significant group differences at the p < .05 level.
Outcomes by Sex Group
Measure
Male
N = 55
Female
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
3.32
3.31
Pretest Ethical Sensitivity
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.