1. “What I do Matters”: Student Reactions to Integrated Micro/Macroethics Instruction “What I do Matters”: Student Reactions to Integrated Micro/Macroethics Instruction Heather Canary University of Utah Joseph Herkert Arizona State University

2. Integrating Microethics and Macroethics in Graduate Science and Engineering Education: Development and Assessment of Instructional Models NSF/EESE #0832944 Project Goals Develop integrated learning objectives for graduate students Apply learning objectives in four educational models Assess student learning Share knowledge and materials

3. Project Team Joseph Herkert, ASU, PI Heather Canary, Utah, Co-PI Karin Ellison, ASU, Co-PI Jameson Wetmore, ASU, Co-PI JoAnn Williams, ASU Ira Bennett, ASU Brad Allenby, ASU Jonathan Posner, ASU Joan McGregor, ASU Dave Guston, ASU Consultants Deborah Johnson, Virginia Rachelle Hollander, NAE Nick Steneck, Michigan Advisory Council Kristen Kulinowski, Rice Dean Nieusma, RPI Sarah Pfatteicher, Wisconsin Karl Stephan, Texas State

4. Four Educational Models Stand-alone course (Science Policy for Scientists and Engineers-1 credit)Stand-alone course (Science Policy for Scientists and Engineers-1 credit) Technical course with embedded ethics content (Fundamentals of Biological Design)Technical course with embedded ethics content (Fundamentals of Biological Design) Online/Classroom hybrid (Introduction to RCR in the Life Science – 1 credit)Online/Classroom hybrid (Introduction to RCR in the Life Science – 1 credit) Lab group engagementLab group engagement

5. Assessment Efforts Quantitative measures of desired outcomes: Knowledge of relevant standards Knowledge of relevant standards Ethical sensitivity Ethical sensitivity Ethical reasoning Ethical reasoning Quantitative measures of classroom dynamics: Instructor Argumentativeness & Aggressiveness Instructor Argumentativeness & Aggressiveness Out-of-Class Communication Out-of-Class Communication Classroom Climate (Defensive vs. Supportive) Classroom Climate (Defensive vs. Supportive) Qualitative Assessment of Student Perceptions: Role in society as scientist/engineer (pre- & post) Role in society as scientist/engineer (pre- & post) Most memorable discussion (topic & features) Most memorable discussion (topic & features) Most effective/ineffective instructional methods Most effective/ineffective instructional methods Relevance/value of discussions Relevance/value of discussions

6. Participants Fall 2009 - Spring 2011 Embedded Model (N = 21) Embedded Model (N = 21) Stand-Alone Model (N = 14) Stand-Alone Model (N = 14) Hybrid Model (N = 20) Hybrid Model (N = 20) Lab Model (N = 2; excluded from analysis) Lab Model (N = 2; excluded from analysis) Control Group (N = 26) Control Group (N = 26) Student Status: Undergraduates 5 Undergraduates 5 Transitional 5 Transitional 5 Masters20 Masters20 PhD50 PhD50 Mean Age = 24.23 Males = 55; Females = 26

7. Participants, cont’d. Academic Program: Biodesign21 Biodesign21 Engineering30 Engineering30 Chem/BioChem 9 Chem/BioChem 9 Biology12 Biology12 Other 5 Other 5 Missing 4 Missing 4 Previous Ethics Instruction: Yes = 36 Previous S. R. Instruction: Yes = 22 First Language: ■ English 54 ■ Chinese10 ■ Spanish 2 ■ Indian Language 8 ■ Korean 2 ■ Other 5Ethnicity/Race: ■ White41 ■ Hispanic 6 ■ Asian28 ■ African American 3 ■ Other 3

8. Role in Society Responses

9. Pretest Comparison: Experimental Groups vs. Control Group

10. Posttest Comparison: Experimental Groups vs. Control Group

11. Most Memorable Discussion Features Relevant & Applicable to Personal Life – 20 (34%) Memorable or Shocking Examples – 11 (19%) Clarification & Scope of Issue – 10 (17%) No Previous Exposure to Topic – 8 (14%) Good Class Discussion – 5 (9%) Lack of Specific Answers – 3 (5%) Discussion Frequency or Recency – 2 (3%)

12. Positive Pedagogy Evaluations Two Predominant Themes: ■ Open Discussion – 17 (36%) ■ Combination of Methods – 15 (32%) Other themes with more than one response: ■ Written & Visual Presentations (4) ■ Real World Examples (3) ■ Reading Assignments (2) ■ Written Assignments (2)

13. Negative Pedagogy Evaluations 10 Methods/Features Not/Least Useful: Lack of Clear Answers or Guidelines (2) Lack of Clear Answers or Guidelines (2) Online Modules (2) Online Modules (2) Power Point Slides (2) Power Point Slides (2) Written Assignments (2) Written Assignments (2) No control of Student Presentations (1) No control of Student Presentations (1) Off Topic Discussion (1) Off Topic Discussion (1) Poor Logic Presented (1) Poor Logic Presented (1) Reading Assignments (1) Reading Assignments (1) Too Hypothetical (1) Too Hypothetical (1) Video Segments (1) Video Segments (1)

14. Relevance & Value of Discussions – Positive Themes Two Predominant Themes: Related to Current Situations or Issues – 25 (23%) Related to Current Situations or Issues – 25 (23%) Related to Future Situations or Profession – 24 (22%) Related to Future Situations or Profession – 24 (22%) Other themes with more than one response: Value in Hearing Different Opinions – 10 (9%) Value in Hearing Different Opinions – 10 (9%) Valuable for Personal Reflection – 4 (4%) Valuable for Personal Reflection – 4 (4%) Value in Considering Ethical Implications – 8 (7%) Value in Considering Ethical Implications – 8 (7%) Value in Exposure to Unknown Issues – 6 (6%) Value in Exposure to Unknown Issues – 6 (6%) Value in Knowing Ethical Standards – 6 (6%) Value in Knowing Ethical Standards – 6 (6%) Value in Learning Mitigation Strategies – 7 (7%) Value in Learning Mitigation Strategies – 7 (7%)

15. Relevance & Value of Discussions – Negative Themes Relevance & Value Hindered by Lack of Clear Answers – 9 (8%) Relevance Hindered by Bias – 5 (5%) Minimal Value – 4 (4%)

16. Conclusions Participants more clearly identify social implications of work in posttest. Participants found multi-method approach most effective, with emphasis on open discussion. Positive evaluations of instructional experience far outweigh negative evaluations. Future analysis to explore associations between qualitative results and quantitative results.

17. Acknowledgements Co-PIs Karin Ellison and Jameson WetmoreCo-PIs Karin Ellison and Jameson Wetmore National Science FoundationNational Science Foundation Biological Design Ph.D. ProgramBiological Design Ph.D. Program Center for Biology and SocietyCenter for Biology and Society Center for Nanotechnology and SocietyCenter for Nanotechnology and Society Consortium for Science, Policy & OutcomesConsortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes Lincoln Center for Applied EthicsLincoln Center for Applied Ethics