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.