Comparing First-Year Engineering Student Conceptions of Ethical Decision-Making to Performance on Standardized Assessments of Ethical Reasoning.

Richard T Cimino, Scott C Streiner, Daniel D Burkey, Michael F Young, Landon Bassett, Joshua B Reed

Abstract readComparative Study

In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Richard T CiminoOtto H. York Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ, USA. cimino@njit.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-4171-4133

Scott C StreinerDepartment of Industrial Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.

Daniel D BurkeyDepartment of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA.

Michael F YoungLearning Sciences Program, Neag School of Education, The University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA.

Landon BassettDepartment of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA.

Joshua B ReedDepartment of Experiential Engineering Education, Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ, USA.

Funding

National Science Foundation 1934707National Science Foundation 2211320

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Defining Issues Test 2 (DIT-2) and Engineering Ethical Reasoning Instrument (EERI) are designed to measure ethical reasoning of general (DIT-2) and engineering-student (EERI) populations. These tools-and the DIT-2 especially-have gained wide usage for assessing the ethical reasoning of undergraduate students. This paper reports on a research study in which the ethical reasoning of first-year undergraduate engineering students at multiple universities was assessed with both of these tools. In addition to these two instruments, students were also asked to create personal concept maps of the phrase "ethical decision-making." It was hypothesized that students whose instrument scores reflected more postconventional levels of moral development and more sophisticated ethical reasoning skills would likewise have richer, more detailed concept maps of ethical decision-making, reflecting their deeper levels of understanding of this topic and the complex of related concepts. In fact, there was no significant correlation between the instrument scores and concept map scoring, suggesting that the way first-year students conceptualize ethical decision making does not predict the way they behave when performing scenario-based ethical reasoning (perhaps more situated). This disparity indicates a need to more precisely quantify engineering ethical reasoning and decision making, if we wish to inform assessment outcomes using the results of such quantitative analyses.

Indexed as

Decision MakingEducational MeasurementEngineeringStudentsEthics, ProfessionalFemaleHumansMaleMoral DevelopmentMoralsProblem SolvingThinkingUniversitiesConcept mapsEngineering ethicsEthical decision-makingEthical reasoningEthics assessment

Identifiers

PMID38833046

DOI10.1007/s11948-024-00488-y

PMCPMC11150177

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.