Advertisement

Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 1283–1303 | Cite as

Effects of Alternative Outcome Scenarios and Structured Outcome Evaluation on Case-Based Ethics Instruction

  • Juandre Peacock
  • Lauren N. Harkrider
  • Zhanna Bagdasarov
  • Shane Connelly
  • James F. Johnson
  • Chase E. Thiel
  • Alexandra E. MacDougall
  • Michael D. Mumford
  • Lynn D. Devenport
Original Paper

Abstract

Case-based instruction has been regarded by many as a viable alternative to traditional lecture-based education and training. However, little is known about how case-based training techniques impact training effectiveness. This study examined the effects of two such techniques: (a) presentation of alternative outcome scenarios to a case, and (b) conducting a structured outcome evaluation. Consistent with the hypotheses, results indicate that presentation of alternative outcome scenarios reduced knowledge acquisition, reduced sensemaking and ethical decision-making strategy use, and reduced decision ethicality. Conducting a structured outcome evaluation had no impact on these outcomes. Results indicate that those who use case-based instruction should take care to use clear, less complex cases with only a singular outcome if they are seeking these types of outcomes.

Keywords

Alternative outcome scenarios Outcome evaluation Ethical decision-making Teaching ethics Case-based reasoning 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by grant # 0931539 from the National Science Foundation. The project tile is: “Case-Based Reasoning and Ethics Instruction: Content and Processing Exercises for Effective Education.”.

References

  1. Alliger, G. M., Tannenbaum, S. I., Bennett, W., Jr, Traver, H., & Shotland, A. (1997). A meta-analysis of the relations among training criteria. Personnel Psychology, 50(2), 341–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernardin, H. J., & Buckley, M. R. (1981). Strategies in rater training. Academy of Management Review, 6, 205–212.Google Scholar
  3. Brock, M. E., Vert, A., Kligyte, V., Waples, E. P., Sevier, S. T., & Mumford, M. D. (2008). Mental models: An alternative evaluation of a sensemaking approach to ethics instruction. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14, 449–472. doi: 10.1007/s11948-008-90763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Devenport, L. D. (2005). Big pharma. Norman: University of Oklahoma.Google Scholar
  5. Falkenberg, L., & Woiceshyn, J. (2007). Enhancing business ethics: Using cases to teach moral reasoning. Journal of Business Ethics, 79, 213–217. doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9381-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gutman, J. (1982). A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes. Journal of Marketing, 46, 60–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hammond, K. J. (1990). Case-based planning: A framework for planning from experience. Cognitive Science, 14, 385–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Harkrider, L. N., Thiel, C. E., Bagdasarov, Z., Mumford, M. D., Johnson, J. F., Connelly, S., & Devenport, L. D. (under review). Improving case-based ethics training with codes of conduct and forecasting content. Ethics & Behavior. Google Scholar
  9. Hudson, C. G. (2009). Decision-making in evidence-based practice: Science and art. Smith College Studies in Social Work (Haworth), 79(2), 155–174. doi: 10.1080/00377310902832334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Johnson, J. F., Thiel, E. C., Bagdasarov, Z., Connelly, S., Harkrider, L., Devenport, L. D., & Mumford, M. D. (under review). Case-based ethics education: How cause complexity and outcome valence affect ethicality. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics. Google Scholar
  11. Jolly, P. J., Reynolds, T. J., & Slocum, J. W., Jr. (1988). Application of the means-end theoretic for understanding the cognitive bases of performance appraisal. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 153–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., Tuovinen, J., & Sweller, J. (2001). When problem solving is superior to studying worked examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 579–588. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.93.3.579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kolodner, J. L. (1991). Improving human decision-making through case-based decision aiding. AI Magazine, 12(2), 52–68.Google Scholar
  14. Kolodner, J. L. (1992). An introduction to case-based reasoning. Artificial Intelligence Review, 6, 3–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kolodner, J. L. (1997). Educational implications of analogy: A view from case-based reasoning. American Psychologist, 52, 57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lonergan, D. C., Scott, G. M., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). Evaluative aspects of creative thought: Effects of idea appraisal and revision standards. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 231–246.Google Scholar
  17. Menzel, D. C. (2009). Teaching and learning ethical reasoning with cases. Public Integrity, 11(3), 239–250. doi: 10.2753/PIN1099-9922110303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mumford, M. D., Connelly, S., Brown, R. P., Murphy, S. T., Hill, J. H., Antes, A. L., Waples, E. P., & Devenport, L. D. (2008). Sensemaking approach to ethics training for scientists: Preliminary evidence of training effectiveness. Ethics and Behavior, 18, 315–339. doi: 10.1080/10508420802487815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mumford, M. D., Schultz, R. A., & Van Doorn, J. R. (2001). Performance in planning: Processes, requirements, and errors. Review of General Psychology, 5, 225–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rippin, A., Booth, C., Bowie, S., & Jordan, J. (2002). A complex case: Using the case study method to explore uncertainty and ambiguity in undergraduate business education. Teaching in Higher Education, 7(4), 429–441. doi: 10.1080/1356251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ross, B. H. (1986). Remindings in learning: Objects and tools. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity, analogy, and thought. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Scott, G. M., Lonergan, D. C., & Mumford, M. D. (2005). Conceptual Combination: Alternative knowledge structures, alternative heuristics. Creativity Research Journal, 17(1), 79–98. doi: 10.1207/s15326934crj1701_7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 59, 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Simon, H. A. (1986). Decision-making and problem solving. In National Academic of Sciences (Ed.), Research briefings 1986: Report of the research briefing panel on decision-making and problem solving (pp. 17–36). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  25. Stenmark, C., Antes, A. L., Wang, X., Caughron, J., Thiel, C. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2010). Strategies in forecasting outcomes in ethical decision-making: Identifying and analyzing the causes of the problem. Ethics and Behavior, 20, 110–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P., & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load as a factor in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119(2), 176–192. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.119.2.176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thiel, C. E., Connelly, S., Harkrider, L., Devenport, L. D., Bagdasarov, Z., Johnson, J. F., et al. (2011). Case-based knowledge and ethics education: Improving learning and transfer through emotionally rich cases. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s11948-011-9318-7.Google Scholar
  29. Van Merriënboer, J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147–177. doi: 10.1007/s10648-005-3951-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Werhane, P. H. (2002). Moral imagination and systems thinking. Journal of Business Ethics, 38, 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Williams, S. M. (1992). Putting case-based instruction into context: Examples from legal and medical education. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(4), 367–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Woehr, D. J., & Huffcutt, A. I. (1994). Rater training for performance appraisal: A quantitative review. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 189–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Xiao, Y., Milgram, P., & Doyle, D. J. (1997). Planning behavior and its functional role in interactions with complex systems. IEEE transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics, 27, 313–325.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juandre Peacock
    • 1
  • Lauren N. Harkrider
    • 1
  • Zhanna Bagdasarov
    • 1
  • Shane Connelly
    • 1
  • James F. Johnson
    • 1
  • Chase E. Thiel
    • 1
  • Alexandra E. MacDougall
    • 1
  • Michael D. Mumford
    • 1
  • Lynn D. Devenport
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Center for Applied Social ResearchUniversity of OklahomaNormanUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of OklahomaNormanUSA

Personalised recommendations