Review of ASU Project: Integrating Microethics and Macroethics in Graduate
Science and Engineering Education: Development and Assessment of Instructional
Models
Prepared by Deborah G. Johnson, University of Virginia
September 9, 2012
This review is based on attendance at one of the project workshops, review of the
2010-11 annual report and the 2012 ASEE paper “Microethics and macroethics in
graduate education for scientists and engineers: developing and assessing
instructional models” by Canary, Herkert, Ellison, and Wetmore, as well as
conversations with P.I. Herkert.
The focus of study of this project is extremely important. It addresses two
fundamental dimensions of engineering ethics education: which teaching formats
are most effective and can macro as well as micro ethical issues be brought
effectively into science and engineering ethics education. The project was well
designed to address the effectiveness of formats. The project team taught ethics
material in four different formats – stand alone, embedded, hybrid, and in the lab.
They assessed students who were taught in each format using the same tools and
included a control group. Hence, the assessment results (to be discussed further
below) make a significant contribution to knowledge as to how to teach ethics to
science and engineering graduate students.
One possible problem with the project design is that the material presented in each
format varied. Hence, some of the variation in results for each group may be a
function of the content presented rather than the format. However, the extent of the
effect of varying content is limited because some content was, by design, common to
all formats. That is, I understand that all formats were supposed to cover data
management, conflict of interest on the micro issues, and sustainability and military
research for the macro issues.
The goals were the same for each of the formats. These were to increase knowledge
of relevant standards; increase ethical sensitivity, and improve ethical reasoning.
These are precisely the right goals and insofar as the assessment tools were
designed to measure changes in these three aspects of student learning, the results
of the project are significant and quite helpful to those interested in ethics education
for science and engineering students.
From what I can tell, the assessment did not address the macro-micro ethics
distinction. Rather the content in each format included material on both and hence,
insofar as the results are significant, they show that both micro and macro ethical
issues can be effectively integrated in all four formats.
The fact that the hybrid group scored better on knowledge than other experimental
groups is interesting and important because ethicists tend to think that ethics can’t
be taught effectively in online formats. Hence, this evidence adds to the
conversation and suggests that more research should be done on the hybrid model.
The differences in outcomes for native English speakers and non-native English
speakers is also interesting and something that needs further research. Here, it
seems, more information about differences in performance on assessments between
native and non-native English speakers in general might put these results in context.
In other words, is there something about ethics that brings out or exacerbates the
differences or are the results merely the same as the differences that result in
assessing learning of any kind of subject matter?
The project team seems correct in its reluctance to interpret the differences in
outcomes for male and female participants. In light of the research on women in
science and engineering, especially the research on the impact of classroom styles,
the team might consider how the gender of the instructor might have affected the
impact of the material on male and female students.
The negative correlation between out-of-class communication and ethical sensitivity
is surprising. The result is definitely in need of further exploration.
On the other hand, the correlation between out-of-class communication and more
out-of-class/lab ethics conversations seems promising. We don’t really know
whether more out-of-class/lab conversations means “increased knowledge of
relevant standards; increased ethical sensitivity, or improved ethical reasoning” but
it does seem that there should be a high correlation since increased conversations is
a sign of interest and awareness.
Overall, this has been a highly successful project. The results will be useful to others
who teach ethics to science and engineering students or to scientists and engineers.
I can even say that having followed the project and read the results, I am planning to
use some of the project results in planning an engineering ethics course for the
coming spring.