Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Teaching for adaptive expertise in biomedical engineering ethics

  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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. 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. 262–272

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hatano, G. & Oura, Y. (2003) Commentary: Reconceptualizing school learning using insight from expertise research, Educational Researcher 32: 26–29.

    Google Scholar 

  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. Hatano, G., & Greeno, J. G. (1999) Commentary: Alternative perspectives on transfer and transfer studies, International Journal of Educational Research 31(7): 645–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

  9. Davis, M. (2003) Teaching ethics across the engineering curriculum, onlineethics.org (http://www.onlineethics.org/).

  10. Herkert, J. R. (2000) Engineering ethics education in the USA: Content, pedagogy and curriculum, European Journal of Engineering Education 25(4): 303–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Weiss, J. W. (2003) Business Ethics: A Stakeholder and Issues Management Approach, South-Western/Thomson Learning, Mason, OH.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Freeman, R.E. (1984) Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Paliwoda, J. (2002) Seven ways to think about ethics, Behavioral Health Management 22(5): 44–45.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973) Perception in chess, Cognitive Psychology 1: 33–81.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. (1996) Motivation in Education: Theory, Research, and Application, Merrill Prentice-Hall, Columbus, OH.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Scaife, M., & Rogers, Y. (1996) External cognition: How do graphical representations work?, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 45: 185–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. Anderson, J. R. (1982) Acquisition of a cognitive skill, Psychological Review 89: 369–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998) A time for telling, Cognition and Instruction 16(4): 475–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. VaNTH. (2005). http://www.vanth.org.

  29. University of Texas at Austin Ethics Group (2005) Ethics Learning Modules. http://www.engr.utexas.edu/ethics/modules.cfm.

  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.

  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.

  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. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983) Schema induction and analogical transfer, Cognitive Psychology 1: 1–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1990) Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition, Educational Researcher 19(6): 2–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. Sadler, D. R. (1989) Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems, Instructional Science 18: 119–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Bell, J. (November 11, 2003) Stem cell lines have limited value: Panel advocates starting new lines, Baltimore Sun, Baltimore.

  38. Hays, W. L. (1994) Statistics, 5th edition, Harcourt Brace College Publishers, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Texas, Austin, 1 University Station, D5700, 78712-0379, Austin, TX, USA

    Taylor Martin

  2. Department of Educational Psychology, University of Texas, Austin, USA

    Karen Rayne

  3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Texas, Austin, USA

    Nate J. Kemp, Jack Hart & Kenneth R. Diller

Authors
  1. Taylor Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karen Rayne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nate J. Kemp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jack Hart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kenneth R. Diller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Taylor Martin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Martin, T., Rayne, K., Kemp, N.J. et al. Teaching for adaptive expertise in biomedical engineering ethics. SCI ENG ETHICS 11, 257–276 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-005-0045-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-005-0045-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation