June 26, 2011
June 26, 2011
June 29, 2011
22.226.1 - 22.226.13
Arguing to Solve Engineering Ethics ProblemsEthical issues pervade engineering practice. Engineering ethics problems are ill-structured with alternative solutions, perspectives, and rationales. In order toprepare engineering students for practice, ABET requires that engineeringeducation programs address ethical responsibilities based on economic,environmental, ethical, social, and political factors. Previous studies by the authors showed that arguing for solutions toethical problems is an effective strategy for requiring students to addressmultiple perspectives in support of ethical problems. However, a significantweakness on student solutions to ethical problems is conceiving of and rebuttingcounterarguments. Therefore, these studies investigated alternative methods forfacilitating the identification and rebuttal of counterarguments. In two experiments, engineering students enrolled in an introductoryengineering education class constructed argumentative solutions to everydayengineering ethics problems in a hypertext, Engineer Your Ethics (EYE). EYEintegrates everyday ethics scenarios with personal perspectives on the problem,applications of theories and ethical canons, and various tasks for engagingethical problem solving. Students identify ethical issues by applying differentethical theories and professional codes of ethics, identify stakeholders and theirperspectives on the issue, generate solutions according to ethical theories, andmake ethical decisions by referring to the various optional solutions, perspectivesand theories. Experiment 1 compared the effects of arguing against one’s own solutionversus solutions recommended by others. Results showed that students developmore and higher quality counterarguments to arguments produced by someoneelse. Because of myside bias, students find it difficult to argue against their ownsolutions. Experiment 2 evaluated the effects of providing examples ofcounterarguments on students’ justifications for their solutions. Results showedthat examples of counterarguments are not effective in helping student generatecounterarguments. Rather, constructing their own counterarguments is moregenerative and therefore more effective. Engineering programs must not only push their students to becomeconcerned about the public health and safety of others, but also to 1) help theirstudents to defend their solutions to ethical problems, 2) acquire the ability toevaluate alternative solutions from different perspectives, and, 3) enhancestudents’ divergent thinking (e.g., understanding situations from otherstakeholders’ points of view). Engineering students can learn to meaningfullyaddress ethical issues. However, in both experiments, the effects of treatmentwere not sustained over time. In order to sustain training effects, ethical problemsolving must be integrated more fully into engineering classroom interactions.
Jonassen, D. H. (2011, June), Arguing to Solve Engineering Ethics Problems Paper presented at 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Vancouver, BC. 10.18260/1-2--17507
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2011 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015