1 / 17

“What I do Matters”: Student Reactions to Integrated Micro/ Macroethics Instruction 

“What I do Matters”: Student Reactions to Integrated Micro/ Macroethics Instruction . Heather Canary University of Utah Joseph Herkert Arizona State University.

vevina
Download Presentation

“What I do Matters”: Student Reactions to Integrated Micro/ Macroethics Instruction 

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. “What I do Matters”: Student Reactions to Integrated Micro/Macroethics Instruction  Heather CanaryUniversity of Utah Joseph Herkert Arizona State University

  2. Integrating Microethics and Macroethics in Graduate Science and Engineering Education:Development and Assessment of Instructional Models NSF/EESE #0832944 • Project Goals • Develop integrated learning objectives for graduate students • Apply learning objectives in four educational models • Assess student learning • Share knowledge and materials

  3. Project Team Joseph Herkert, ASU, PI Heather Canary, Utah, Co-PI Karin Ellison, ASU, Co-PI Jameson Wetmore, ASU,Co-PI JoAnn Williams, ASU Ira Bennett, ASU Brad Allenby, ASU Jonathan Posner, ASU Joan McGregor, ASU Dave Guston, ASU 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

  4. Four Educational 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 Science – 1 credit) • Lab group engagement

  5. Assessment Efforts • Quantitative measures of desired outcomes: • Knowledge of relevant standards • Ethical sensitivity • Ethical reasoning • Quantitative measures of classroom dynamics: • Instructor Argumentativeness & Aggressiveness • Out-of-Class Communication • Classroom Climate (Defensive vs. Supportive) • Qualitative Assessment of Student Perceptions: • Role in society as scientist/engineer (pre- & post) • Most memorable discussion (topic & features) • Most effective/ineffective instructional methods • Relevance/value of discussions

  6. Participants • Fall 2009 - Spring 2011 • 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

  7. Participants, cont’d. • Academic Program: • Biodesign21 • Engineering 30 • 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 • Spanish 2 • Indian Language 8 • Korean 2 • Other 5 • Ethnicity/Race: • White 41 • Hispanic 6 • Asian 28 • African American 3 • Other 3

  8. Role in Society Responses

  9. Pretest Comparison: Experimental Groups vs. Control Group

  10. Posttest Comparison:Experimental Groups vs. Control Group

  11. Most Memorable Discussion Features Relevant & Applicable to Personal Life – 20 (34%) Memorable or Shocking Examples – 11 (19%) Clarification & Scope of Issue – 10 (17%) No Previous Exposure to Topic – 8 (14%) Good Class Discussion – 5 (9%) Lack of Specific Answers – 3 (5%) Discussion Frequency or Recency – 2 (3%)

  12. Positive Pedagogy Evaluations • Two Predominant Themes: • Open Discussion – 17 (36%) • Combination of Methods – 15 (32%) • Other themes with more than one response: • Written & Visual Presentations (4) • Real World Examples (3) • Reading Assignments (2) • Written Assignments (2)

  13. Negative Pedagogy Evaluations • 10 Methods/Features Not/Least Useful: • Lack of Clear Answers or Guidelines (2) • Online Modules (2) • Power Point Slides (2) • Written Assignments (2) • No control of Student Presentations (1) • Off Topic Discussion (1) • Poor Logic Presented (1) • Reading Assignments (1) • Too Hypothetical (1) • Video Segments (1)

  14. Relevance & Value of Discussions – Positive Themes • Two Predominant Themes: • Related to Current Situations or Issues – 25 (23%) • Related to Future Situations or Profession – 24 (22%) • Other themes with more than one response: • Value in Hearing Different Opinions – 10 (9%) • Valuable for Personal Reflection – 4 (4%) • Value in Considering Ethical Implications – 8 (7%) • Value in Exposure to Unknown Issues – 6 (6%) • Value in Knowing Ethical Standards – 6 (6%) • Value in Learning Mitigation Strategies – 7 (7%)

  15. Relevance & Value of Discussions – Negative Themes Relevance & Value Hindered by Lack of Clear Answers – 9 (8%) Relevance Hindered by Bias – 5 (5%) Minimal Value – 4 (4%)

  16. Conclusions Participants more clearly identify social implications of work in posttest. Participants found multi-method approach most effective, with emphasis on open discussion. Positive evaluations of instructional experience far outweigh negative evaluations. Future analysis to explore associations between qualitative results and quantitative results.

  17. Acknowledgements • Co-PIs Karin Ellison and Jameson Wetmore • National Science Foundation • Biological Design Ph.D. Program • Center for Biology and Society • Center for Nanotechnology and Society • Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes • Lincoln Center for Applied Ethics

More Related