Fostering Argumentation While Solving Engineering Ethics Problems

Abstract

B ackground Ethical issues pervade engineering practice. Ethical problems are ill‐structured with alternative solutions, perspectives, and rationales for justifying solutions to ethical problems. We describe studies examining argumentation as a pedagogical strategy for engaging engineering students in ethical problem solving. P urpose (H ypothesis ) Previous studies by the authors showed that arguing for solutions to ethical problems is an effective strategy for helping students to learn how to address multiple perspectives in support of ethical problems. However, from an argumentative perspective, a significant weakness in student solutions to ethical problems is conceiving and rebutting counterarguments. D esign /M scethod In two experiments, engineering students constructed argumentative solutions to everyday engineering ethics problems in a complex hypertext representing multiple perspectives. Experiment 1 compared the effects of arguing against one's own solution versus solutions recommended by others. Experiment 2 evaluated the effects of providing examples of counterarguments on justifications for students' solutions. R esults In two experiments, engineering students constructed argumentative solutions to everyday engineering ethics problems in a complex hypertext representing multiple perspectives. Experiment 1 compared the effects of arguing against one's own solution versus solutions recommended by others. Experiment 2 evaluated the effects of providing examples of counterarguments on justifications for students' solutions. C onclusions Engineering students can learn to meaningfully address ethical issues; however, more sustained treatments are necessary to help students to transfer those skills more broadly.