Advertisement

Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 387–407 | Cite as

The Engineering and Science Issues Test (ESIT): A Discipline-Specific Approach to Assessing Moral Judgment

  • Jason BorensteinEmail author
  • Matthew J. Drake
  • Robert Kirkman
  • Julie L. Swann
Original Paper

Abstract

To assess ethics pedagogy in science and engineering, we developed a new tool called the Engineering and Science Issues Test (ESIT). ESIT measures moral judgment in a manner similar to the Defining Issues Test, second edition, but is built around technical dilemmas in science and engineering. We used a quasi-experimental approach with pre- and post-tests, and we compared the results to those of a control group with no overt ethics instruction. Our findings are that several (but not all) stand-alone classes showed a significant improvement compared to the control group when the metric includes multiple stages of moral development. We also found that the written test had a higher response rate and sensitivity to pedagogy than the electronic version. We do not find significant differences on pre-test scores with respect to age, education level, gender or political leanings, but we do on whether subjects were native English speakers. We did not find significant differences on pre-test scores based on whether subjects had previous ethics instruction; this could suggest a lack of a long-term effect from the instruction.

Keywords

Engineering ethics Science ethics Assessment Moral judgment Ethics education 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was funded in part by a grant from the College of Engineering Undergraduate Initiative at the Georgia Institute of Technology, and in part by a Focused Research Program grant from the Office of the Vice Provost for Research at the Georgia Institute of Technology. In addition, Dr. Swann was supported in part by NSF DMI-0348532. We would like to acknowledge Dr. Harry Sharp for his help with developing the scanning form for the test and converting tests to raw data and Mr. Andy Haleblian for his help in creating the electronic version of the ESIT.

References

  1. Bebeau, M. J. (2002). The defining issues test and the four component model: Contributions to professional education. Journal of Moral Education, 31(3), 271–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Drake, M., Griffin, P., Kirkman, R., & Swann, J. (2005). Engineering ethical curricula: assessment and comparison of two approaches. Journal of Engineering Education, 94, 223–231.Google Scholar
  3. Harris, C. E., Davis, M., Pritchard, M. S., & Rabins, M. J. (2005). Engineering ethics: Concepts and cases (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  4. Harris, C. E., Davis, M., Pritchard, M. S., & Rabins, M. J. (1996). Engineering ethics: what? why? how? and when?”. Journal of Engineering Education, 85, 93–96.Google Scholar
  5. Haws, D. R. (2001). Ethics instruction in engineering education: A (mini) meta-analysis. Journal of Engineering Education, 90, 223–229.Google Scholar
  6. Herkert, J. R. (1999). ABET’s Engineering Criteria 2000 and engineering ethics: Where do we go from here? In International conference on ethics in engineering and computer science. http://www.onlineethics.org/cms/12053.aspx. Accessed 29 November 2008.
  7. Herkert, J. R. (2000). Engineering ethics education in the USA: Content, pedagogy and curriculum. European Journal of Engineering Education, 25(4), 303–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kohlberg, L. (1984). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In The psychology of moral development: The nature and validity of moral stages (pp. 7–169). San Fransisco: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  9. Mappes, T. A., & Zembaty, J. S. (2002). Social ethics: Morality and social policy (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  10. Mavis, B. E., & Brocato, J. J. (1998). Postal surveys versus electronic mail surveys—The tortoise and the hare revisited. Evaluation & The Health Professions, 21(3), 395–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Narvaez, D., & Bock, T. (2002). Moral schemas and tacit judgement or how the defining issues test is supported by cognitive science. Journal of Moral Education, 31(3), 297–314.Google Scholar
  12. Narvaez, D., & Rest, J. (1995). The four components of acting morally. In W. Kurtines & J. Gewirtz (Eds.). Moral behavior and moral development: An introduction (pp. 385–400). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  13. Newberry, B. (2004). The dilemma of ethics in engineering education. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10, 343–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rachels, J. (2002). The elements of moral philosophy (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  15. Resnik, D. B. (2005). Using electronic discussion boards to teach responsible conduct of research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11(4), 617–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rest, J., & Narvaez, D. (Eds.). (1994). Moral development in the professions: Psychology and applied ethics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  17. Rest, J., & Narvaez, D. (1998). DIT-2: Defining issues test. St. Paul, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  18. Rest, J., Narvaes, D., Bebeau, M. J., & Thoma, S. J. (1999a). Postconventional moral thinking: A Neo-Kohlbergian approach. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  19. Rest, J., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M. J., & Thoma, S. J. (1999b). New issues, new theory, new findings, Chap. 5. In Postconventional moral thinking: A Neo-Kohlbergian approach. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. Rest, J., Narvaes, D., Thoma, S. J., & Bebeau, M. J. (1999c). DIT2: devising and testing a revised instrument of moral judgment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 644–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rest, J., Thoma, S. J., Narvaes, D., & Bebeau, M. J. (1997). Alchemy and beyond: Indexing the defining issues test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 498–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schlaefli, A., Rest, J., & Thoma, S. J. (1985). Does moral education improve moral judgment? A meta-analysis of intervention studies using the defining issues test. Review of Educational Research, 55(3), 319–352.Google Scholar
  23. Self, D. J., & Ellison, E. M. (1998). Teaching engineering ethics: Assessment of its influence on moral reasoning skills. Journal of Engineering Education, 87(1), 29–34.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jason Borenstein
    • 1
    Email author
  • Matthew J. Drake
    • 2
  • Robert Kirkman
    • 1
  • Julie L. Swann
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Public PolicyGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.A.J. Palumbo School of Business AdministrationDuquesne UniversityPittsburghUSA
  3. 3.Stewart School of Industrial and Systems EngineeringGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations