Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28005255›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2017

The Roles of Implicit Understanding of Engineering Ethics in Student Teams' Discussion.

Eun Ah Lee, Magdalena Grohman, Nicholas R Gans, Marco Tacca, Matthew J Brown

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Eun Ah LeeCenter for Values in Medicine, Science and Technology, The University of Texas at Dallas, 800 W. Campbell Road, JO31, Richardson, TX, 75080-3021, USA.
Magdalena GrohmanCenter for Values in Medicine, Science and Technology, The University of Texas at Dallas, 800 W. Campbell Road, JO31, Richardson, TX, 75080-3021, USA.
Nicholas R GansDepartment of Electrical Engineering, The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA.
Marco TaccaDepartment of Electrical Engineering, The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA.
Matthew J BrownCenter for Values in Medicine, Science and Technology, The University of Texas at Dallas, 800 W. Campbell Road, JO31, Richardson, TX, 75080-3021, USA. mattbrown@utdallas.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5361-5143

Funding

National Science Foundation 1338735
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

ComprehensionEmotionsEthics, ProfessionalProblem SolvingThinkingCommunicationDecision MakingEngineeringGroup ProcessesHumansIntuitionJudgmentMoralsSocial ResponsibilityStudentsCognitive ethnographyDistributed cognitionEngineering ethicsEthical insightImplicit understandingIntuitive ethicsSituated cognitionSituated learning

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.