Abstract
As a committee of the National Academy of Engineering recognized, ethics education should foster the ability of students to analyze complex decision situations and ill-structured problems. Building on the NAE’s insights, we report about an innovative teaching approach that has two main features: first, it places the emphasis on deliberation and on self-directed, problem-based learning in small groups of students; and second, it focuses on understanding ill-structured problems. The first innovation is motivated by an abundance of scholarly research that supports the value of deliberative learning practices. The second results from a critique of the traditional case-study approach in engineering ethics. A key problem with standard cases is that they are usually described in such a fashion that renders the ethical problem as being too obvious and simplistic. The practitioner, by contrast, may face problems that are ill-structured. In the collaborative learning environment described here, groups of students use interactive and web-based argument visualization software called “AGORA-net: Participate – Deliberate!”. The function of the software is to structure communication and problem solving in small groups. Students are confronted with the task of identifying possible stakeholder positions and reconstructing their legitimacy by constructing justifications for these positions in the form of graphically represented argument maps. The argument maps are then presented in class so that these stakeholder positions and their respective justifications become visible and can be brought into a reasoned dialogue. Argument mapping provides an opportunity for students to collaborate in teams and to develop critical thinking and argumentation skills.
Notes
See also National Research Council (2004).
See http://agora.gatech.edu/. By clicking on “Enter the AGORA-net,” a Flash application opens in the user’s browser. Every entry is saved on a central server so that synchronous and asynchronous online collaboration on argument maps from all over the world is possible. According to http://www.statowl.com/flash.php (accessed Oct 1, 2012), the Adobe Flash Player runs worldwide on approximately 95 % of all computer systems, across browsers and platforms without installation. AGORA-net should not to be confused with the software “Agora” which is available at http://www.ethicsandtechnology.com and described by van der Burg and van de Poel (2005). Whereas AGORA-net is a tool for the presentation of arguments in graphical form for all sorts of purposes, Agora focuses on the integration of ethical theories and codes of ethics in case-based engineering education. It provides theories, codes, cases, and exercises, and it offers templates and hints that structure user input in the form of texts.
Tasks for training with comments for instructors are available in Hoffmann (2011). Instructors are invited to contact the first author of this article to become a member of the AGORA-project “AGORA instructors” where exemplary solutions can be found.
Before that, Dr. Hoffmann taught approximately ten courses in which students used the freely available concept mapping software Cmap (http://cmap.ihmc.us/) to perform “Logical Argument Mapping (LAM)” in similar, project-based settings. LAM presupposes that students learn the basics of propositional logic. This is no longer necessary since the rules on which LAM is based are implemented in the AGORA software. A first AGORA-based version of an Engineering Ethics class was taught simultaneously at the Georgia Institute of Technology and at Bauman Moscow State Technical University in the fall of 2011.
The Neanderthal problem was created by the research team for a recently concluded grant project. Dr. Roberta M. Berry, Georgia Institute of Technology, served as the principal investigator and the project title was “Ethically Contentious Research and Innovation: An Interdisciplinary and Inter-institutional Experiment in Ethics Education and Assessment,” NSF EESE Program, Award ID SES-0832912. The Neanderthal problem and four other “fractious problems” created for the project are available at the University of Illinois Ethics CORE (Collaborative Online Resource Environment) http://nationalethicscenter.org/resources/808.
References
Andriessen, J. E. B. (2006). Arguing to learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443–460). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Andriessen, J. E. B. (2009). Argumentation in higher education: Examples of actual practices with argumentation tools. In N. M. Mirza & A. N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education (pp. 195–213). New York: Springer.
Andriessen, J. E. B., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. D. (Eds.). (2003). Arguing to learn. Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (Computer-supported collaborative learning I). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Aristotle. (2002). Nicomachean ethics (C. Rowe, Trans.). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. Springfield, IL: Problem-based Learning Institute.
Bell, P. (2004). Promoting students’ argument construction and collaborative debate in the science classroom. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 115–143). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Berry, R., Borenstein, J., & Butera, R. (2012). Contentious problems in bioscience and biotechnology: A pilot study of an approach to ethics education. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-012-9359-6.
Buckingham Shum, S. (2003). The roots of computer-supported argument visualization. In P. A. Kirschner, S. J. Buckingham Shum, & C. S. Carr (Eds.), Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making (pp. 3–24). London: Springer.
Carr, C. S. (2003). Using computer supported argument visualization to teach legal argumentation. In P. A. Kirschner, S. J. Buckingham Shum, & C. S. Carr (Eds.), Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making (pp. 75–96). London: Springer.
Carter, L. (2007). A case for a duty to feed the hungry: GM plants and the third world. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(1), 69–82. doi:10.1007/s11948-006-0006-y.
Conklin, J. (2003). Dialog mapping: Reflections on an industrial strength case study. In P. A. Kirschner, S. J. Buckingham Shum, & C. S. Carr (Eds.), Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making (pp. 117–136). London: Springer.
Coughlin, S. S. (2008). Using cases with contrary facts to illustrate and facilitate ethical analysis. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14, 103–110.
Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science, 862–864. doi:10.1126/science.1201783.
Duch, B. J., Groh, S. E., & Allen, D. E. (2001). The power of problembased learning: A practical “How to” for teaching undergraduate courses in any discipline. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Gijbels, D., Van de Watering, G., Dochy, F., & Van den Bossche, P. (2006). New learning environments and constructivism: The students’ perspective. Instructional Science, 34(3), 213–226. doi:10.1007/s11251-005-3347-z.
Haws, D. R. (2001). Ethics instruction in engineering education: A (Mini) meta-analysis. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(2), 223–229.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cognition and Instruction, 26(1), 48–94. doi:10.1080/07370000701798495.
Hoffmann, M. H. G. (2007). Logical argument mapping: A cognitive-change-based method for building common ground. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series; vol. 280. Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Pragmatic web, pp. 41–47. doi:10.1145/1324237.1324242.
Hoffmann, M. H. G. (2008). Requirements for reflective argument visualization tools: A case for using validity as a normative standard. In P. Besnard, S. Doutre & A. Hunter (Eds.), Computational models of argument. Proceedings of COMMA 2008 (pp. 196–203, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications). Amsterdam: IOS.
Hoffmann, M. H. G. (2011). Understanding controversies and ill-structured problems through argument visualization. Curriculum and learning materials for problem-based learning in small groups of students who work autonomously on projects with the interactive AGORA software, including an exemplary reader on genetically modified plants.
Hollander, R., & Arenberg, C. R. (Eds.). (2009). Ethics education and scientific and engineering research: What’s been learned? What should be done? Summary of a workshop (National Academy of Engineering). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Jonassen, D. H., & Cho, Y. H. (2011). Fostering argumentation while solving engineering ethics problems. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(4), 680–702.
Jonassen, D. H., Shen, D., Marra, R. M., Cho, Y. H., Lo, J. L., & Lohani, V. K. (2009). Engaging and supporting problem solving in engineering ethics. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(3), 235–254.
Kirschner, P. A., Buckingham Shum, S. J., & Carr, C. S. (Eds.). (2003). Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. London: Springer.
National Research Council. (2004). The engineer of 2020: Visions of engineering in the new century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Newstetter, W. C. (2005). Designing cognitive apprenticeships for biomedical engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(2), 207–213.
Newstetter, W. C. (2006). Fostering integrative problem solving in biomedical engineering: The PBL approach. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 34(2), 217–225. doi:10.1007/s10439-005-9034-z.
Okada, A., Buckingham Shum, S., & Sherborne, T. (Eds.). (2008). Knowledge cartography. London: Springer.
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.
Saletan, W. (2008). Return of the Neanderthals: If we can resurrect them through fossil DNA, should we? Slate. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2008/11/return_ofthe_neanderthals.html
Shuman, L. J., Besterfield-Sacre, M., & Mcgourty, J. (2005). The ABET ‘Professional Skills’—can they be taught? Can they be assessed. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 41–55.
van Bruggen, J. M., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Kirschner, P. A. (2003). A cognitive framework for cooperative problem solving with argument visualization. In P. A. Kirschner, S. J. Buckingham Shum, & C. S. Carr (Eds.), Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making (pp. 25–47). London: Springer.
van der Burg, S., & van de Poel, I. (2005). Teaching ethics and technology with Agora, an electronic tool. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11(2), 277–297.
van Gelder, T., Bissett, M., & Cumming, G. (2004). Cultivating expertise in informal reasoning. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58(2), 142–152.
Woods, D. R. (1996). Problem-based learning for large groups in chemical engineering. In L. A. Wilkerson & W. H. Gijselaers (Eds.), Bringing problem-based learning to higher education (pp. 91–99). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Acknowledgments
The research and software development described in this article has been supported by a Grant from the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE), U.S. Department of Education, Grant P116S100006. We want to thank Erik Robbins, Romeo Cabanban, Darren Samuel Harris, Sallie Lu, Rajitha Siyasena, Kim-Quyen Thi Tran, Robert DePietro, and Thomas Pilliod for allowing us to reproduce excerpts from the argument maps they produced for their class projects.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hoffmann, M., Borenstein, J. Understanding Ill-Structured Engineering Ethics Problems Through a Collaborative Learning and Argument Visualization Approach. Sci Eng Ethics 20, 261–276 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-9430-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-9430-y