Assessment of general moral reasoning has been studied and significantly advanced. Several instruments exist for the purpose of measuring moral reasoning. Several disciplines have developed instruments for measuring the moral reasoning of members of their community. However, according to Ohland and Barry (2009), while the health and business professions have advanced discipline- specific assessment tools to target professional ethics and found value in the creation of such instruments, engineering does not currently have a similar fully developed assessment tool. The literature revealed very little published research on the subject of an engineering-based moral reasoning assessment tool. Two conference papers, published in 2003 and 2004, identified this apparent deficiency and discussed research efforts to develop an instrument (Shuman et al., 2004; Sindelar et al., 2003). Unfortunately, that work remains incomplete and correspondence with the principal investigators indicates no immediate plans to revive the study (Barry, 2007).
The framework for most of the modern efforts to assess moral reasoning was developed by Lawrence Kohlberg. Kohlberg believed that individuals progress through a series of six stages of moral reasoning. Kohlberg’s field instrument for measuring moral reasoning is known as the Moral Judgment Interview (MJI). The assessment focuses on the justification for the participants’ reasoning, rather than the evaluation of correct or incorrect responses. Participants are scored based on the relation between their responses to the dilemmas and Kohlberg’s six pre-defined stages. The MJI has been shown to be a valid and reliable assessment of moral reasoning (Ohland & Barry, 2009).
Literature shows that the pedagogical framework of engineering ethics education has evolved primarily toward utilization of case studies and codes of ethics, in some instances supplemented by an introduction to moral theory. Substantial progress has been made in the development of case materials, including high profile cases, everyday cases. Cases are widely disseminated in textbooks and online.
According to Ohland and Barry (2009) within the literature associated with the Engineering profession, there is much discussion and debate over instruction methods and curriculum incorporation methods. The use of case-based instruction methods appears to be the most common pedagogical method within the engineering professional education. Research related to professional ethics within the discipline has primarily focused on assessment of student learning, rather than evaluation of instructional methods and/or curriculum incorporation methods. A limited number of studies have been published that compare two methods of instruction or two methods of curriculum incorporation.
In the widely used engineering ethics text by Harris, he makes the statement that “there is widespread agreement that the best way to teach professional ethics is by using cases.” However, a meta-analysis of conference papers conducted by Haws (2001) identifies emphasis on codes and theoretical grounding as two other methods of engineering ethics instruction. Likewise, codes and ethical theories are also discussed extensively in the texts of Harris et al. (2005) and Fleddermann (2008).
My personal experience from attending and observing a few classes where ethics is taught is leading me to the conclusion that it is not sufficient to teach ethics of the professions through example alone. One cannot expect that students will be able to understand and adapt to professional standards and values of the community simply by observing the behavior of professionals. Learning by observation requires interpretation. The rationale and assumptions that underlie behavior are not always obvious. Observational learning, alone, is not an efficient method of communicating critical issues.
My philosophy is that when educating engineering students for the professional world they need to be engage in challenging decision making exercises and encourage students’ enthusiasm for life-long learning, competency in the subject, and self-assurance to apply their knowledge in real world settings. In my opinion, students often learn what will help them to pass the final exam or course requirements; however, in assessing knowledge in engineering ethics course instructors must measure a student’s ability to recognize an ethical issue and analyze possible courses of action, not assess their performance from their textbook knowledge. The pedagogy have to focus not on lecturing ethical theories and memorizing philosophical terms, but on presenting, discussing, and exchanging perspectives.
References:
Haws, D. R. (2001). Ethics instructions in engineering education: A (mini) meta-analysis. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(2).
Ohland, M. & Barry B., (2009) Applied Ethics in the Engineering, Health, Business, and Law Professions: A Comparison. Journal of Engineering Education, October 2009.
Shuman, L.J., Sindelar, M.F., et al. (2004). Can our students recognize and resolve ethical dilemmas? Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference& Exposition, Salt Lake City, Utah.
No comments:
Post a Comment