Advertisement

Purple Dragons and Yellow Toadstools a Versatile Exercise for Introducing Students to Negotiated Consensus

  • Brian P. CoppolaEmail author
  • India C. Plough
  • Huai Sun
Opinion/Editorial
  • 14 Downloads

Abstract

An activity called Purple Dragons and Yellow Toadstools, originally reported in 1987 as a training activity for jurors, was adapted as a priming exercise for a unit on teaching research ethics with undergraduate students. In this activity, learners develop skills for building negotiated consensus. The procedure involves individuals’ ranking 10–15 moral transgressions and/or legal violations followed by a small group discussion in order to arrive at an agreed-upon ranking by the team. The framework has proved to be quite flexible, adaptable to different subject areas and with different populations of students.

Keywords

Research ethics Ethics training Curriculum design Teaching Education 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank their students for continually engaging one another with enthusiasm and thoughtful discussion. BPC thanks the undergraduate group leaders who help implement these activities in their supplemental instruction sessions (L. Chen, L. Daboul, T. Friedlander, J. Gatti, J. Lawniczak, D. Luan, J. Luo, K. McKernan, A. Milen, A. Min, C. Nino, A. Nishii, P. Parker, M. Payne, M. Ryan, R. Tarnopol, A. Young). We dedicate this paper to the legacy of the unknown individual(s) who originally created Purple Dragons and Yellow Toadstools.

References

  1. Bebeau, M. J., Pimple, K. D., Mustavitch, K. M. T., Borden, S. L., & Smith, D. H. (1995). Moral reasoning in scientific research: Cases for teaching and assessment. Bloomington, IN: Poynter Center for the Study of Ethics and American Institutions.Google Scholar
  2. Bi, Y. (2012). On the death penalty for drug-related crime in China. Human Rights and Drugs, 2(1), 29–44.Google Scholar
  3. Cheruvalath, R. (2017). Does studying ‘ethics’ improve engineering students’ meta‑moral cognitive skills?  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-0009-x.
  4. Coppola, B. P. (2000). Targeting entry points for ethics in chemistry teaching and learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(11), 1506–1511.Google Scholar
  5. Coppola, B. P. (2013). The distinctiveness of a higher education. Journal Chemical Education, 90(8), 955–956.Google Scholar
  6. Coppola, B. P., & Krajcik, J. S. (2014). Discipline-centered postsecondary education research: Distinctive targets, challenges and opportunities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(6), 679–693.Google Scholar
  7. Coppola, B. P., & Smith, D. H. (1996). A case for ethics. Journal of Chemical Education, 73(1), 33–34.Google Scholar
  8. Cordner, P., & Brooks, T. F. (1987). Training techniques for judicial systems. In W. Caruso & W. Travelstead (Eds.), Enhancing campus judicial systems: New directions for student services (pp. 31–42). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, M. (2011). The usefulness of moral theory in teaching practical ethics: A reply to Gert and Harris. Teaching Ethics, 12(1), 51–60.Google Scholar
  10. Elliott, D., & Stern, J. E. (Eds.). (1997). Research ethics: A reader. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England for the Institute for the Study of Applied and Professional Ethics at Dartmouth College.Google Scholar
  11. Gurin, P., & Maxwell, K. (2017). Overview: Faculty development for inclusive educational environments. Liberal Education, 103(3/4), 6–9.Google Scholar
  12. Heitman, E. (2002). Using cases in the study of ethics. In R. E. Bulger, E. Heitman, & S. J. Reiser (Eds.), The ethical dimensions of the biological sciences (2nd ed., pp. 349–352). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hess, J. L., & Fore, G. (2018). A systematic literature review of us engineering ethics interventions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24, 551–583.Google Scholar
  14. Itten, A. (2017). Context and content toward consensus in public mediation. Negotiation Journal, 33(3), 185–211.Google Scholar
  15. Kovac, J., & Coppola, B. P. (2000). Universities as moral communities. Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 83, 765–779.Google Scholar
  16. Liao, Q.-J., Zhang, Y.-Y., Fan, Y. C., Zheng, M.-H., Bai, Y., Eslick, G. D., et al. (2018). Perceptions of chinese biomedical researchers towards academic misconduct: A comparison between 2015 and 2010. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24, 629–645.Google Scholar
  17. Macrina, F. L. (2005). Scientific integrity: Text and cases in responsible conduct of research (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: ASM Press.Google Scholar
  18. Rachels, J. (1999). The elements of moral philosophy (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  19. Schrag, B. (2005). Pedagogical objectives in teaching research ethics in science and engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11(3), 347–366.Google Scholar
  20. Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2014). Responsible conduct of research (3rd ed.). Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Slavich, G. M., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2012). Transformational teaching: Theoretical underpinnings, basic principles, and core methods. Educational Psychology Review, 24(4), 569–608.Google Scholar
  22. Smith, A. (1974). Purple dragons and yellow toadstools: A ranking experience. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  23. Varma-Nelson, P., & Coppola, B. P. (2005). Team Learning. In N. Pienta, M. M. Cooper, & T. Greenbowe (Eds.), Chemist’s guide to effective teaching (pp. 155–169). Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
  24. Wueste, D. E. (2005). A philosophical yet user-friendly framework for ethical decision making in critical care nursing. Dimsensions of Critical Care Nursing, 24(2), 70–79.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ChemistryUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Residential College in the Arts and HumanitiesMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  3. 3.Department of ChemistryShanghai Jiao Tong UniversityMinhang District, ShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations