Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 257–276 | Cite as

Teaching for adaptive expertise in biomedical engineering ethics

  • Taylor Martin
  • Karen Rayne
  • Nate J. Kemp
  • Jack Hart
  • Kenneth R. Diller
Article

Abstract

This paper considers an approach to teaching ethics in bioengineering based on the How People Learn (HPL) framework. Curricula based on this framework have been effective in mathematics and science instruction from the kindergarten to the college levels. This framework is well suited to teaching bioengineering ethics because it helps learners develop “adaptive expertise”. Adaptive expertise refers to the ability to use knowledge and experience in a domain to learn in unanticipated situations. It differs from routine expertise, which requires using knowledge appropriately to solve routine problems. Adaptive expertise is an important educational objective for bioengineers because the regulations and knowledge base in the discipline are likely to change significantly over the course of their careers. This study compares the performance of undergraduate bioengineering students who learned about ethics for stem cell research using the HPL method of instruction to the performance of students who learned following a standard lecture sequence. Both groups learned the factual material equally well, but the HPL group was more prepared to act adaptively when presented with a novel situation.

Keywords

engineering ethics stem cell research adaptive expertise instructional methods ethical decision making undergraduate engineering education 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L. & Cocking, R.R. (2000) eds.. How people learn: Mind, brain, experience, and school, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise, in: Stevenson, H., Azuma, J. & Hakuta, K. eds., Child development and education in Japan, W. H. Freeman & Co., New York, pp. 262–272Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hatano, G. & Oura, Y. (2003) Commentary: Reconceptualizing school learning using insight from expertise research, Educational Researcher 32: 26–29.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Advisory Committee to the National Science Foundation, Directorate for Education and Human Resources, Shaping the future, Volume II: Perspectives on undergraduate education in Science, Mathematics, Education, and Technology (1998) National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hatano, G., & Greeno, J. G. (1999) Commentary: Alternative perspectives on transfer and transfer studies, International Journal of Educational Research 31(7): 645–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fisher, F. F., & Peterson, P. (2001) A tool to measure adaptive expertise in biomedical engineering students. Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Albuquerque, NM.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harris, T. R., Bransford, J. D., & Brophy, S. P. (2002) Roles for the Learning Sciences and learning technologies in biomedical engineering education: A review of recent advances, Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering 4: 29–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pandy, M. G., Petrosino, A., Austin, B. A., & Barr, R. A. (2005). Assessing adaptive expertise in undergraduate biomechanics, Journal of Engineering Education Manuscript in press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davis, M. (2003) Teaching ethics across the engineering curriculum, onlineethics.org (http://www.onlineethics.org/).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Herkert, J. R. (2000) Engineering ethics education in the USA: Content, pedagogy and curriculum, European Journal of Engineering Education 25(4): 303–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weiss, J. W. (2003) Business Ethics: A Stakeholder and Issues Management Approach, South-Western/Thomson Learning, Mason, OH.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harrison, J. S., & Freeman, R. E. (1999) Stakeholders, social responsibility, and performance: Empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives, Academy of Management Journal 42: 479–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Freeman, R.E. (1984) Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, London, UK.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mongoven, A. M. (2003) Duties to stakeholders amidst pressure from shareholders: Lessons from an advisory panel on transplant policy, Bioethics 17(4): 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Paliwoda, J. (2002) Seven ways to think about ethics, Behavioral Health Management 22(5): 44–45.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973) Perception in chess, Cognitive Psychology 1: 33–81.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. (1996) Motivation in Education: Theory, Research, and Application, Merrill Prentice-Hall, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Scaife, M., & Rogers, Y. (1996) External cognition: How do graphical representations work?, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 45: 185–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Barron, B. J., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., et al. (1998) Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning, Journal of the Learning Sciences 7: 271–312.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Anderson, J. R. (1982) Acquisition of a cognitive skill, Psychological Review 89: 369–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bransford, J. D., Franks, J. J., Vye, N. J., & Sherwood, R. D. (1989) New approaches to instruction: Because wisdom can’t be told, in: Vosniadou, S. & Ortony A., eds. Similarity and Analogical Reasoning, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 470–497.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998) A time for telling, Cognition and Instruction 16(4): 475–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T. (2004) Inventing to Prepare for Future Learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction, Cognition and Instruction 22(2): 129–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schwartz, D. L., Brophy, S., Lin, X., & Bransford, J. D. (1999) Software for manging complex learning: Examples from an educational psychology course, Educational Technology Research and Development 47(2): 39–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Williams, S. M. (1992) Putting case-based instruction into context: Examples from legal and medical education, Journal of the Learning Sciences 2(4): 367–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vye, N. J., Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., Barron, B. B., & Zech, L. (1998) SMART environments that support monitoring, reflection, and revision, in: Hacker, D., Dunlosky, J. & Graesser, A. eds. Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    VaNTH. (2005). http://www.vanth.org.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    University of Texas at Austin Ethics Group (2005) Ethics Learning Modules. http://www.engr.utexas.edu/ethics/modules.cfm.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Brophy, S., Bliley, K., Gray, A., Mathieson, C., Mowry, E., & Collins, J. (2002) BME goes to the movies: Developing ethical perspectives in bioengineers, Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education (CD-ROM DEStech Publications) Session 2273: 10 pages.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Collins, J., & Mathieson, C. (2002) Case studies in economics and ethics in an early biomedical engineering class, Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education (CD-ROM DEStech Publications) Session 2164: 12 pages.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., & Sears, D. (2005) Innovation and efficiency in learning and transfer, in: Mestre, J. ed. Transfer, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, Manuscript in press.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983) Schema induction and analogical transfer, Cognitive Psychology 1: 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1990) Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition, Educational Researcher 19(6): 2–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1997) The Jasper Project: Lessons in Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment and Professional Development, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sadler, D. R. (1989) Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems, Instructional Science 18: 119–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bell, J. (November 11, 2003) Stem cell lines have limited value: Panel advocates starting new lines, Baltimore Sun, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hays, W. L. (1994) Statistics, 5th edition, Harcourt Brace College Publishers, New York, NY.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Opragen Publications 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Taylor Martin
    • 1
  • Karen Rayne
    • 2
  • Nate J. Kemp
    • 3
  • Jack Hart
    • 3
  • Kenneth R. Diller
    • 3
  1. 1.Dept. of Curriculum and InstructionUniversity of Texas, AustinAustinUSA
  2. 2.Department of Educational PsychologyUniversity of TexasAustinUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biomedical EngineeringUniversity of TexasAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations