2.  Ethics Education in Science & Engineering program, National Science Foundation  Interdisciplinary Project Team:  Joe Herkert, PI, Engineering Ethics  Heather Canary, Co-PI, Communication  Karin Ellison, Co-PI, Biology & Society  Jamey Wetmore, Co-PI, Science, Technology & Society  How do we integrate education about “micro” ethics (individual responsibilities) with education about “macro” ethics (social responsibilities of a profession, field, or discipline)?

3.  Four Goals of Ethics Education (Davis, 2006):  Increased ethical sensitivity  Increased knowledge of relevant standards of conduct  Improved ethical judgment  Improved ethical will-power  Four Instructional Models:  Stand-alone 1-credit course  Embedded units in 9-credit required course  Hybrid course  Lab engagement model

4.  How do we best meet goals?  Compare outcomes across instructional models  How do we find out what differs across instructional models?  Constant observation of all four models across time not possible  Syllabi and course structure indicate one type of difference  Student outcomes are measure of efficacy but not of different processes  Student reflections about process best indicator of how models differ

5.  Quantitative Measures:  Instructor Argumentativeness  Instructor Verbal Aggressiveness  Out of Class Communication  Classroom Communication Climate  Qualitative Assessments:  How view role in society as scientist/engineer (pretest & posttest comparison)  Most memorable topic/discussion (details)  Identify & evaluate ways ethics/social responsibility presented (details)  How relevant were these discussions, why?  How valuable were these discussions, why?

6.  Ethics education is an inter-disciplinary concern  Fostering ethics discussions requires being situated in professional context  Predict that student outcomes are related to classroom dynamics  Content-specific discussions regarding micro & macro concerns garner student interest