Skip to main content

The Importance of Formative Assessment in Science and Engineering Ethics Education: Some Evidence and Practical Advice

Abstract

Recent research in ethics education shows a potentially problematic variation in content, curricular materials, and instruction. While ethics instruction is now widespread, studies have identified significant variation in both the goals and methods of ethics education, leaving researchers to conclude that many approaches may be inappropriately paired with goals that are unachievable. This paper speaks to these concerns by demonstrating the importance of aligning classroom-based assessments to clear ethical learning objectives in order to help students and instructors track their progress toward meeting those objectives. Two studies at two different universities demonstrate the usefulness of classroom-based, formative assessments for improving the quality of students’ case responses in computational modeling and research ethics.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Angelo, T. A., & Cross, P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Josey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bebeau, M. J., & Thoma, S. (1999). Intermediate concepts and the connection to moral education. Educational Psychology Review, 11(4), 343–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2008). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Davis, M., & Feinerman, A. (2010). Assessing graduate student progress in engineering ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(2), 351–367.

    Google Scholar 

  6. DuBois, J. M., Schilling, D. A., Heitman, E., Steneck, N. H., & Kon, A. A. (2010). Instruction in the responsible conduct of research: An inventory of programs and materials within CTSAs. Clinical and Translational Science, 3(3), 109–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Harris, C. E., Pritchard, M. S., & Rabins, M. J. (1995). Engineering ethics: Concepts and cases (4th ed.). Belmont CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kalichman, M. (2007). Responding to challenges in educating for the responsible conduct of research. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 870–875.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kalichman, M., & Plemmons, D. (2007). Reported goals for responsible conduct of research courses. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 846–852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Keefer, M. W., & Ashley, K. D. (2001). Case-based approaches to professional ethics: A systematic comparison of students’ and ethicists’ moral reasoning. The Journal of Moral Education, 30(4), 377–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Keefer, M. W., & Davis, M. (2012). Curricular design and assessment in professional ethics education: Some practical advice. Teaching Ethics, 13(1), 81–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Keefer, M. W., & Wilson, S. (2011). Responding to computational modeling cases: The importance of informal assessment. Paper presented at the 13th international conference for the society for ethics Across the Curriculum. St. Louis, MO. November, 3–5.

  13. Kijowski, D. J. (2010). Responsible conduct of research with computational models and simulations. Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship (IDEALS), p. 237. Retrieved May 25, 2011, from https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/18349.

  14. Kijowski, D.J., Dankowicz, H., & Loui, M. C. (2011) Observations on the responsible development and use of computational models and simulations. Science and Engineering Ethics. To appear, available online, doi:10.1007/s11948-011-9291-1.

  15. Lehmann, L. S., Kasoff, W. S., Koch, P., & Federman, D. D. (2004). A survey of medical ethics education at U.S. and canadian medical schools. Academic Medicine, 79(7), 682–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Loui, M. C. (2006). Assessment of an engineering ethics video: Incident at morales. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(1), 85–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Resnick, L. B. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13–20.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Stevens, D. D., & Levi, A. J. (2013). Introduction to Rubics (2nd ed.). Sterling, Va: Stylus Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under grants IIS-0832843 and IIS-0832844. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. We would like to thank Nicole Cooley for help with data coding; Ying Liu and Natalie Bolton for data analysis; and David Kijowski for his help in developing the case studies that were tested in these two studies.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew W. Keefer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Keefer, M.W., Wilson, S.E., Dankowicz, H. et al. The Importance of Formative Assessment in Science and Engineering Ethics Education: Some Evidence and Practical Advice. Sci Eng Ethics 20, 249–260 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-9428-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Ethics education
  • Assessment
  • Computational modeling cases
  • Research ethics