Advertisement

Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 261–276 | Cite as

Understanding Ill-Structured Engineering Ethics Problems Through a Collaborative Learning and Argument Visualization Approach

  • Michael Hoffmann
  • Jason Borenstein
Original Paper

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.

Keywords

Argument mapping Collaborative learning Engineering ethics Problem-based learning 

Notes

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.

References

  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. Aristotle. (2002). Nicomachean ethics (C. Rowe, Trans.). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. Springfield, IL: Problem-based Learning Institute.Google Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. 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.
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coughlin, S. S. (2008). Using cases with contrary facts to illustrate and facilitate ethical analysis. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14, 103–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science, 862–864. doi: 10.1126/science.1201783.
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haws, D. R. (2001). Ethics instruction in engineering education: A (Mini) meta-analysis. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(2), 223–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cognition and Instruction, 26(1), 48–94. doi: 10.1080/07370000701798495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.
  20. 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.Google Scholar
  21. 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.Google Scholar
  22. 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.Google Scholar
  23. Jonassen, D. H., & Cho, Y. H. (2011). Fostering argumentation while solving engineering ethics problems. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(4), 680–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kirschner, P. A., Buckingham Shum, S. J., & Carr, C. S. (Eds.). (2003). Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. National Research Council. (2004). The engineer of 2020: Visions of engineering in the new century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  27. Newstetter, W. C. (2005). Designing cognitive apprenticeships for biomedical engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(2), 207–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Okada, A., Buckingham Shum, S., & Sherborne, T. (Eds.). (2008). Knowledge cartography. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 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.Google Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. van Gelder, T., Bissett, M., & Cumming, G. (2004). Cultivating expertise in informal reasoning. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58(2), 142–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public PolicyGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Graduate Research Ethics ProgramsAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations