Data Analysis for Ethics Toolkit
Methodology
Students were given pre- and post-tests to determine the effectiveness of the Ethics Toolkit. The
tests were designed to glean students’ impressions what an ethical decision is and what factors they
consider in making a decision.
Link to test:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?hl=en_US&formkey=dE1xT3JNVTdNNF84alV6eTlpV
kdweVE6MQ#gid=0
The sample size for the pre-test was 184 students. The sample size for the post-test was 107
students.
Figure 1: Compares students’ impressions of what is an ethical decision.
100
80
60
Pre-Test
40
Post-Test
78.3
20
0
Party
Sport
Parents
iPod
Shoes
The data shows that students were more aware of what might constitute an ethical decision by the
end of the year. This shows that our unified approach to discussing ethics was effective. The project
certainly raised student awareness about ethics. The pastoral care program was specifically focused
on party planning, so that explains why students universally recognised who to invite to a party as an
ethical decision. Similarly, students recognised the decision of asking their parents to pick them up
from school as an ethical decision because they discussed greenhouse emissions in their Science
classes. The sharp increase in students regarding whether or not to polish their shoes as an ethical
decision was based on the principal’s attention to uniform as an issue linked to the school’s values.
Figure 2: Percentage of students using more than one lens to justify their decision.
80
60
Pre-Test
40
Post-Test
20
0
The data shown here is the proof that the Ethics Toolkit is effective. In the pre-test, when students
were asked to explain their decision regarding using a neighbour’s WiFi connection, they
overwhelmingly considered only one “lens”. One-hundred and forty-three students indicated that
their only concern when deciding not to use the neighbour’s WiFi was that it was against the law.
Only three students of the 184 respondents in the pre-test indicated that they were thinking of more
than one factor in making their decision. In these three cases, students stated they were concerned
about the law, but they were also concerned with care for the neighbour. In each of the three
responses students noted that they would not like to use the neighbour’s WiFi because they would
not want anyone to do that to them. This showed thinking in line with the Care lens that was
presented in the Ethics Toolkit. Of the 184 respondents in the pre-test, 22 students indicated that
they would use the WiFi because they felt it was hurting no-one and therefore it was not a problem.
This response was in line with what would ultimately become the Consequences lens in the Ethics
Toolkit.
The dramatic growth shown in Figure 2 represents the effectiveness of the lenses included in the
Ethics Toolkit. Students shifted from considering only one factor in their decision-making process to
considering two or more factors. This is what the project team hoped for the Ethics Toolkit.
Conclusion:
While our sample sizes varied in the two tests, the project team believes the two tests show growth
in students’ ethical thinking. The project team has not been able to authentically ascertain whether
students are using all five steps of the Ethics Toolkit, nor can the project reliably say the steps are
second-nature to the students, the data indicates that there has been some movement in students’
thinking in terms of the factors they consider when making a decision. This is in line with the intent
of the project that intended to put all students decisions through a “due diligence” process. Rather
than going with an impulsive decision, students were encouraged to make more measured decisions
by considering different lenses in the decision-making process.