Engaging and Supporting Problem Solving in Engineering Ethics

Journal of Engineering Education, Jul 2009 by Jonassen, David H, Shen, Demei, Marra, Rose M, Cho, Young-Hoan, Lo, Jenny L, Lohani, Vinod K

ABSTRACT

Learning to solve ethical problems is essential to the education of all engineers. Engineering ethics problems are complex and ill structured with multiple perspectives and interpretations to address in their solution. In two experiments, we examined alternative strategies for engaging ethical problem solving. In Experiment 1, students studied two versions of an online learning environment consisting of everyday ethics problems. Students using question hypertext links to navigate applied more perspectives and canons and wrote stronger overall solutions to ethics problems than those using embedded hypertext links. In Experiment 2, students engaged in a more generative task, evaluating alternative arguments for solutions to the cases or generating and supporting their own solutions. Both groups better supported their solutions and generated more counterclaims than control students. These studies focused on solving realistic case-based ethics problems as an effective method for addressing ABET's ethics criteria.

Keywords: argumentation, engineering ethics, problem solving

I. ENGINEERING ETHICS EDUCATION

The job of engineers is very complex. In addition to learning technical engineering skills, engineering students must also learn to work collaboratively with others, communicate effectively, and assume the professional responsibility to recognize and deal with ethical issues (Jonassen, Strobel, and Lee, 2006; Shuman et al., 2004). Because engineers must be prepared to address ethics problems, the ABET, Inc. (formerly know as the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, 1997, p. 1) includes in their criteria for accrediting engineering programs a requirement that graduates must demonstrate an understanding of professional and ethical responsibilities based on economic, environmental, ethical, social, and political constraints. Although ABET criteria may provide an extrinsic rationale for addressing ethics issues in engineering education, the most compelling rationale is the omnipresent nature of ethical issues in engineering practice.

In this paper, we introduce engineering educators to different case-based methods for engaging engineering students in ethical problem solving that were implemented in two studies. Rather than teaching students about ethics, we advocate requiring students to solve authentic, everyday engineering ethics problems. The ethical problems that were solved by individual students in these studies provided a sampling of ethics problem solving but did not represent the range of ethical dilemmas that confront engineers. We also describe alternative methods for supporting ethical problem solving by students, including methods for confronting learners with the complexity of ethics problems as well as argumentative methods for helping students to reconcile those problems.

The rationale for a case-based approach to engineering ethics is the ill-structured nature of ethics problems. Although they occur during everyday engineering practice, ediical problems involve conflicting ethical principles and perspectives that are defined by the different roles that engineers play, and they typically have no absolute right or wrong answers (Fleddermann, 2004). Engineers are most commonly employed by corporations, to which they bear an ethical obligation. On the other hand, engineers also have an ethical responsibility to society. Engineers may encounter complicated situations in which they need to make choices between investing more money and time to guarantee the quality of their work for the safety of the public or to save money for their employers. These situations may initiate conflicts of interest between the employer of engineers and the public, so engineers may have to decide between the employer's and the public's best interest. Although engineering professional associations publish ethical canons to guide behavior, conflicting goals often mean that canons provide only one perspective on any ethical problem.

If ethics instruction is essential to the preparation of engineers, then the academic community must determine the goals and methods for that preparation. Harris et al. (1996) identified a number of important objectives for ethics instruction:

1. Stimulate the ethical imagination of students

2. Help students recognize ethical issues

3. Help students analyze key ethical concepts and principles

4. Help students deal with ambiguity

5. Encourage students to take ethics seriously

6. Increase student sensitivity to ethical issues

7. Increase student knowledge of relevant standards

8. Improve ethical judgment

9. Increase ethical will-power

Newberry (2004) consolidated those objectives into three broader categories: emotional engagement (the willingness to make ethical decisions), intellectual engagement (knowing how to make ethical decisions), and particular knowledge (knowing currendy accepted guidelines for ethical practice). Other researchers have stressed the importance of professional engineering ethical codes, moral reasoning and humanist readings (e.g., Haws, 2001; Lynch, 1997-98) in ethics education. Essentially these approaches describe how engineers should be able to recognize ethical problems; reflectively address those problems by accommodating a variety of perspectives, theories, and ethical codes in their decisions. Haws (2001) argued that engineering programs not only push their students to become concerned about the public health and safety of others, but also to (1) help their students to defend their solutions to ethical problems, (2) acquire the ability to evaluate alternative solutions from different perspectives, and (3) enhance students' divergent thinking (e.g., understanding situations from other stakeholders' points of view). He argued that ethical behavior involves grounding ethical issues in different theoretical approaches, considering multiple options with multiple consequences, and communicating with other stakeholders involved. In order to support the research described in this paper, we attempted to design a learning environment that engaged most of the goals espoused by Haws (2001). In both studies, engineering students were required to accommodate multiple perspectives and theories related to everyday ethics problems. In the first study, we examined alternative methods for directing students' attention to those perspectives. In the second study, we examined students' abilities to evaluate and defend alternative solutions to engineering ethics problems.