The Engineering and Science Issues Test (ESIT): A Discipline-Specific Approach to Assessing Moral Judgment

To assess ethics pedagogy in science and engineering, we developed a new tool called the Engineering and Science Issues Test (ESIT). ESIT measures moral judgment in a manner similar to the Defining Issues Test, second edition, but is built around technical dilemmas in science and engineering. We used a quasi-experimental approach with pre- and post-tests, and we compared the results to those of a control group with no overt ethics instruction. Our findings are that several (but not all) stand-alone classes showed a significant improvement compared to the control group when the metric includes multiple stages of moral development. We also found that the written test had a higher response rate and sensitivity to pedagogy than the electronic version. We do not find significant differences on pre-test scores with respect to age, education level, gender or political leanings, but we do on whether subjects were native English speakers. We did not find significant differences on pre-test scores based on whether subjects had previous ethics instruction; this could suggest a lack of a long-term effect from the instruction.

[1]  Stephen J. Thoma,et al.  Does Moral Education Improve Moral Judgment? A Meta-Analysis of Intervention Studies Using the Defining Issues Test , 1985 .

[2]  Stephen J. Thoma,et al.  DIT2: Devising and testing a revised instrument of moral judgment. , 1999, Journal of Educational Psychology.

[3]  J. Herkert.  Engineering ethics education in the USA: Content, pedagogy and curriculum , 2000 .

[4]  Joseph R. Herkert,et al.  ABET's Engineering Criteria 2000 and Engineering Ethics: Where Do We Go From Here? , 1999 .

[5]  Michael J. Rabins,et al.  Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases , 1999 .

[6]  Elizabeth M. Ellison,et al.  Teaching Engineering Ethics: Assessment of Its Influence on Moral Reasoning Skills , 1998 .

[7]  Julie L. Swann,et al.  Engineering Ethical Curricula: Assessment and Comparison of Two Approaches , 2005 .

[8]  Thomas A. Mappes,et al.  Social Ethics: Morality and Social Policy , 1977 .

[9]  Michael S. Pritchard,et al.  Engineering Ethics: What? Why? How? And When? , 1996 .

[10]  Byron Newberry,et al.  The dilemma of ethics in engineering education , 2004, Science and engineering ethics.

[11]  L. Kohlberg.  Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization , 1969 .

[12]  Stephen J. Thoma,et al.  Alchemy and beyond: Indexing the Defining Issues Test. , 1997 .

[13]  Darcia Narvaez,et al.  Moral Schemas and Tacit Judgement or How the Defining Issues Test is Supported by Cognitive Science , 2002 .

[14]  M. Bebeau,et al.  The Defining Issues Test and the Four Component Model: Contributions to professional education , 2002, Journal of moral education.

[15]  D. Haws.  Ethics Instruction in Engineering Education: A (Mini) Meta‐Analysis , 2001 .

[16]  Darcia Narvaez,et al.  Moral Development in the Professions: Psychology and Applied Ethics , 1994 .

[17]  J. Rachels,et al.  The Elements of Moral Philosophy , 1986 .

[18]  Stephen J. Thoma,et al.  Postconventional Moral Thinking: A Neo-Kohlbergian Approach , 1999 .

[19]  David B Resnik.  Using electronic discussion boards to teach responsible conduct of research , 2005, Science and engineering ethics.

[20]  Stephen J. Thoma,et al.  New Issues, New Theory, New Findings , 1999 .

[21]  B. Mavis,et al.  Postal Surveys versus Electronic Mail Surveys , 1998, Evaluation & the health professions.