Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34297187›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2021

Engineering Students as Co-creators in an Ethics of Technology Course.

Gunter Bombaerts, Karolina Doulougeri, Shelly Tsui, Erik Laes, Andreas Spahn, Diana Adela Martin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors.

Gunter BombaertsPhilosophy and Ethics, Department IE&IS, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. g.bombaerts@tue.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-8006-1617
Karolina DoulougeriEindhoven School of Education (ESoE), Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6981-4529
Shelly TsuiPhilosophy and Ethics, Department IE&IS, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Erik LaesPhilosophy and Ethics, Department IE&IS, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Andreas SpahnPhilosophy and Ethics, Department IE&IS, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2796-0776
Diana Adela MartinPhilosophy and Ethics, Department IE&IS, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9368-4100

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research on the effectiveness of case studies in teaching engineering ethics in higher education is underdeveloped. To add to our knowledge, we have systematically compared the outcomes of two case approaches to an undergraduate course on the ethics of technology: a detached approach using real-life cases and a challenge-based learning (CBL) approach with students and stakeholders acting as co-creators (CC). We first developed a practical typology of case-study approaches and subsequently tested an evaluation method to assess the students' learning experiences (basic needs and motivation) and outcomes (competence development) and staff interpretations and operationalizations, seeking to answer three questions: (1) Do students in the CBL approach report higher basic needs, motivation and competence development compared to their peers in the detached approach? (2) What is the relationship between student-perceived co-creation and their basic needs, motivation and competence development? And (3) what are the implications of CBL/CC for engineering-ethics teaching and learning? Our mixed methods analysis favored CBL as it best supported teaching and research goals while satisfying the students' basic needs and promoting intrinsic motivation and communication competences. Competence progress in other areas did not differ between approaches, and motivation in terms of identified regulation was lower for CBL, with staff perceiving a higher workload. We propose that our case typology model is useful and that as a method to engage students as co-creators, CBL certainly merits further development and evaluation, as does our effectiveness analysis for engineering ethics instruction in general and for case-study approaches in particular.

Indexed as

MotivationStudentsHumansLearningPeer GroupTeachingTechnologyChallenge-based learningCo-creationCompetence developmentEffectiveness modelEngineering-ethics educationSelf-determination theory

Identifiers

PMID34297187
PMCPMC8302512

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.