The Roles of Implicit Understanding of Engineering Ethics in Student Teams’ Discussion

Following previous work that shows engineering students possess different levels of understanding of ethics—implicit and explicit—this study focuses on how students’ implicit understanding of engineering ethics influences their team discussion process, in cases where there is significant divergence between their explicit and implicit understanding. We observed student teams during group discussions of the ethical issues involved in their engineering design projects. Through the micro-scale discourse analysis based on cognitive ethnography, we found two possible ways in which implicit understanding influenced the discussion. In one case, implicit understanding played the role of intuitive ethics—an intuitive judgment followed by reasoning. In the other case, implicit understanding played the role of ethical insight, emotionally guiding the direction of the discussion. In either case, however, implicit understanding did not have a strong influence, and the conclusion of the discussion reflected students’ explicit understanding. Because students’ implicit understanding represented broader social implication of engineering design in both cases, we suggest to take account of students’ relevant implicit understanding in engineering education, to help students become more socially responsible engineers.

[1]  Richard E. Wokutch,et al.  Comparison of Engagement with Ethics Between an Engineering and a Business Program , 2011, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[2]  E. Cech.  Culture of Disengagement in Engineering Education? , 2014 .

[3]  Roger L. Dominowski,et al.  Effects of strategy instructions and practice on nine-dot problem solving. , 1985 .

[4]  Daniel Kelly,et al.  Against the Yuck Factor: On the Ideal Role of Disgust in Society , 2014, Utilitas.

[5]  S. Roeser.  The role of emotions in judging the moral acceptability of risks , 2006 .

[6]  R. Weisberg.  Creativity: Understanding Innovation in Problem Solving, Science, Invention, and the Arts , 2006 .

[7]  P. Bloom.  How do morals change? , 2010, Nature.

[8]  P. Bloom,et al.  The Creativity of Everyday Moral Reasoning: Empathy, Disgust, and Moral Persuasion , 2006 .

[9]  Edward M. Bowden,et al.  The right hemisphere maintains solution-related activation for yet-to-be-solved problems , 2000, Memory & cognition.

[10]  J. Haidt.  The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. , 2001, Psychological review.

[11]  Robert W. Weisberg,et al.  An examination of the alleged role of "fixation" in the solution of several "insight" problems. , 1981 .

[12]  J. Prinz.  AGAINST EMPATHY: AGAINST EMPATHY , 2011 .

[13]  Charles E. Harris,et al.  The Good Engineer: Giving Virtue its Due in Engineering Ethics , 2008, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[14]  D. Kahneman.  Thinking, Fast and Slow , 2011 .

[15]  Melissa L. Finucane.  The Role of Feelings in Perceived Risk , 2013 .

[16]  G. J. Kelly,et al.  An ethnographic investigation of the discourse processes of school science , 1997 .

[17]  E. Hutchins.  Cognition in the wild , 1995 .

[18]  J. Haidt.  The New Synthesis in Moral Psychology , 2007, Science.

[19]  R. Holden.  People or systems? To blame is human. The fix is to engineer. , 2009, Professional safety.

[20]  Ernest Nagel,et al.  Logic: The Theory of Inquiry John Dewey, the Later Works, 1925-1953, Vol. 12 , 1988 .

[21]  Stephanie J. Bird,et al.  Editors’ Overview Perspectives on Teaching Social Responsibility to Students in Science and Engineering , 2013, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[22]  Frederick Reif.  Applying Cognitive Science to Education: Thinking and Learning in Scientific and Other Complex Domains , 2008 .

[23]  Peter Galison,et al.  An Accident of History , 2000 .

[24]  J. Dewey.  How we think : a restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process , 1934 .

[25]  J. Fleck,et al.  The use of verbal protocols as data: An analysis of insight in the candle problem , 2004, Memory & cognition.

[26]  E. Peters,et al.  THE FUNCTIONS OF AFFECT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF PREFERENCES ( 2006 , 2008 .

[27]  J. Haidt,et al.  Intuitive ethics: how innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues , 2004, Daedalus.

[28]  Sabine Roeser,et al.  Emotional Engineers: Toward Morally Responsible Design , 2010, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[29]  Robert F. Williams,et al.  Using Cognitive Ethnography to Study Instruction , 2006, ICLS.

[30]  J. Lave.  Cognition in Practice: Notes , 1988 .

[31]  E. Hutchins,et al.  I See What You Are Saying: Action as Cognition in fMRI Brain Mapping Practice , 2004 .

[32]  Andrew D. Engell,et al.  The Neural Bases of Cognitive Conflict and Control in Moral Judgment , 2004, Neuron.

[33]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[34]  Vivek V. Sharma,et al.  The Neural Bases of Cognitive Conflict in Musicians with Absolute and Relative Pitch , 2019 .

[35]  Ellen Peters,et al.  The Construction of Preference: The Functions of Affect in the Construction of Preferences , 2006 .

[36]  Martin Lee.  Applying cognitive science to education: Thinking and learning in scientific and other complex domains , 2009 .

[37]  Brian A. Nosek.  CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Implicit–Explicit Relations , 2022 .

[38]  Joshua D. Greene,et al.  How (and where) does moral judgment work? , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[39]  D. Mackie,et al.  Of Two Minds , 2006, Psychological science.

[40]  J. Metcalfe.  Feeling of knowing in memory and problem solving. , 1986 .