Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Feelings, Values, Ethics, and Skills 73 as control, expansionism, flexibility, power, precision and speed, we reinforce the very technologies that we may wish to reform. The technologies and skills we value and the values we build into our technologies and reinforce through our identification with them have historical roots and social implications. Can we expect students to merely adopt values on the basis of authority, peer pressure, propaganda or immersion in capitalist economics? When it comes time to choose from among a range of values in technology, or life in general, how can young people choose their own course of action? Ought we model or teach certain values regarding technology in the labs and workshops? Values clarification, explained in the next chapter, is a technique that deals with the process of valuing and challenges to students to formulate and test their values against a range of issues. Character values are addressed in Chapter VII. Dealing with values, whether directly or indirectly, requires that moral choices be made. Teaching with a values consciousness requires that we understand moral reasoning and the processes of ethics. Models of Moral Development Students deal with values and technology at their own level of morality. Young children are quite capable of making moral decisions based on their values. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Lawrence Kohlberg (1975) documented a stage theory of moral development. After working with groups of children, and teenage and adult males, Kohlberg argued that people pass through stages of moral judgment. Kohlberg noted that moral development was a process of growth or progress toward universal principles of morality. However, Kohlberg was quick to note that moral growth was not pinned to biological growth. Young people could advance toward high levels of moral maturity while adults could be stalled in lower stages. Nonetheless, the stages of moral development provide teachers with a road map for analyzing their students’ judgments on ethical and moral issues. It provides teachers with an idea of the judgments their students are capable of making. It also gives us an understanding of why some students or people have higher moral standards than others. Children usually develop through the first two stages and settle into stages three and four. A minority of adults pass into the fifth and sixth stages. The “lower” stages of morality revolve around oneself, then as the morality gets “higher” it includes others individuals and “society.” According to Kohlberg (1975), however mistaken, each individual must go through each stage and cannot skip stages. Students progress through social interaction and exposure to individuals that exhibit the “higher” level traits. Moral dilemmas provide people with opportunities to test their beliefs against those of others and thereby learn which moral judgment system yields a more acceptable result. Copyright © 2007, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited. 74 Petrina One criticism of Kohlberg’s theory is that the progression from lower to higher levels represents the myth of development and progress in western society. The notion of universal ethics is more culturally specific than Kohlberg suggested. With regards to development, adults do not reach a plateau, but rather pick and choose levels of ethics that depend on situations. Another criticism of the stage theory of moral development comes from feminist psychologists, such as Carol Gilligan (1982). Gilligan noted that Kohlberg’s subjects were boys, for the most part. She says that the stages represent male development with an emphasis on the concepts of justice and rights. Female development, she says, is more concerned with negotiation, responsibility and caring. Women must learn to tend to their own interests as well as to the interests of others. Gilligan suggests that women hesitate to judge because they see the complexities of relationships. Rather than apply a universal system of ethics to situations, women tend to look at the specifics of relationships and feelings involved in a moral dilemma. Her three stages of moral development progress from selfish, to social or conventional morality, and finally to a post conventional or principled morality of caring. Kohlberg emphasized the cognitive dimensions of moral judgment and Gilligan brought to surface the emotional dimensions of moral judgment. Kohlberg’s and Gilligan’s stage theories are roadmaps and not exact templates of reality. They provide teachers with powerful tools for helping their students with ethical and moral development. Teachers can have high expectations for their students and a clear notion of the moral abstractions that they can handle. Technology teachers, with their responsibilities for design and technology, need to model moral stances that are based on a range of stages in Kohlberg’s and Gilligan’s theories. Table 2. Kohlberg’s and Gilligan’s moral development theories Kohlberg Gilligan Punishment and obedience Selfishness Personal survival—Me against the world Instrumental exchange You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours Interpersonal conformity Good vs. bad Social or conventional morality Post-conventional or principled morality Law & order Social contract Universal principles Copyright © 2007, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited. Feelings, Values, Ethics, and Skills 75 Technology teachers ought to work with their students to demonstrate the range of moral judgments necessary to use and regulate technology. Teachers need to work with their students to understand the ethical and moral judgments that accompany technical skills (Table 2). As we explained in Chapter I, the affective domain represents a general model of emotional expression and development. In many ways, the affective domain also represents a model of moral expression and development. The affective domain suggests that people express emotions in an increasingly sophisticated way. At low levels, young children merely attend to stimuli and express low level emotional responses, such as satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Young adolescents begin to form and internalize values that they express in their actions. In the upper levels of the affective domain, young adults are capable of organizing a range of different values and emotional responses into value systems. At the upper level of the affective domain, adults are capable of characterizing a value system over periods of time. At the upper levels, individuals are in touch with their own feelings and extremely sensitive to others. Like Kohlberg’s and Gilligan’s models, the affective domain is a roadmap. The affective domain is not tied to directly to age. People do not biologically evolve or progress to the upper levels. Rather, many adults merely express basic emotions without ever organizing their values into a system that characterizes their behavior. The highest levels nevertheless point toward moral action. If life were a simple as progressive development toward universal morality, there would be no problems. There would be no need for ethics. Technology and Ethics The International Society for Technology in Education’s (ISTE) third “technology foundation” standard refers directly to ethics: “Students understand the ethical, cultural, and societal issues related to technology.” Rather than an ethical standard that states how students ought to act, the standard casts ethics in terms of understanding. It is one thing to understand ethical issues and quite another to act ethically in dealings with technology. Moral action requires both emotion and reason. Moral action means that we make reasoned choices on a justifiable basis. Ethics guides moral action in choices of good and evil, right or wrong, and virtue and vice. Moral actions are those deemed worthy of praise or blame, and affect others or yourself. Ethics is a branch of philosophy that attempts to inform moral action by determining a general basis for making choices and judgments. Ethics guides us in examining our choices and actions and the basis for making and judging these choices and actions. Ethically sound actions and choices, or responsibility, require guidance and education. We have to teach students to act ethically in practical and political dealings with technology. Copyright © 2007, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited. 76 Petrina Many, if not most, of our most serious moral dilemmas today involve technologies we have chosen to produce and deploy. Total war, terrorism, cloning, drugs, global warming, ozone depletion and surveillance involve technology in complex ways. Technology is involved in less popularized yet equally serious moral dilemmas, such as mass consumption, television, and free market capitalism. Even the most mundane decisions such as the food we choose to eat, the air we breathe and the transportation systems we use involve technology and, therefore, require ethical examination. Since the 1980s, specialized fields in applied ethics, such as bioethics, environmental ethics, and computer ethics, suggest the proliferation of new and novel moral dilemmas in technology. There are five general areas which implicate technology in moral dilemmas (Pecorino & Maner, 1985): 1. Technology may aggravate certain moral problems (e.g., creating new avenues for infringements on rights). 2. Technology may transform familiar moral problems into analogous but unfamiliar ones (e.g., copyright problems were transformed by file sharing on the Web). 3. Technology may create new problems that are unique to realms of action (e.g., robots displacing workers in manufacturing). 4. Technology may relieve existing moral problems (e.g., built-in breathalyzer in vehicle ignition relives dilemma of drunk driving). 5. Technology may consolidate and aggregate a range of moral problems (e.g., genetic engineering allows us to prevent certain diseases, control behavior, identify criminals, etc.). Our choices to create or use a particular technology are moral choices. Are we free to choose among alternatives based on ethical analysis? Whether it is a particular technology that destabilizes ecology and society and undermines traditional moralities, or whether it is the way that humans use these technologies is a moot point in ethics. Ethics means that we examine possibilities and generate a sound basis for choices. Morality means that we make decisions on sensitive issues and align ourselves with certain causes. We make moral decisions based on five possible approaches (Edgar, 1997): • Base moral decisions on feelings and intuition (emotivism). • Make moral decisions by avoidance or procrastination. Copyright © 2007, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited. Feelings, Values, Ethics, and Skills 77 • Make moral decisions by passing the buck. Find a scapegoat to blame for the situation or decision. Go by the book by appealing to authority (e.g., boss, expertise, courts, law). Or follow the crowd and conform to the norm. • Base moral decisions on caring, sympathy, or love. • Base moral decisions on a rational criterion. Of course, there is no magical formula for making moral decisions. Ethics does not divine the right choice or the answer for safe moral action. In technology, we cannot opt for the fifth approach (rational decision making) by simply acting in our own best interest, regardless of other considerations. This is rational egoism. Nor can we make decisions simply by generating a balance sheet of positive and negative impacts to guide our decision. This is consequentialism. Consequentialism means that consequences alone should be the basis for moral decisions. It means that an action is morally good or right if the consequences of the action are more favorable than unfavorable. Hence, ethical conduct is determined solely by a cost-benefit analysis of an action’s, or a technology’s, consequences. Simply tally up the good and bad consequences of an action or technology and assess whether the good outweigh the bad. This is the simplest form of technology assessment (Chapter V). Consequentialism holds individuals responsible for the actions whether the consequences were intended or unintended. But it is also an “ends justify the means” type of ethics and inadequate for technological decision making. Consequentialism demands that we calculate potential consequences before acting, yet we can end up to be slaves to utility. Utilitarianism means that we judge an action or technology based on a calculation of the “greatest good for the greatest number.” We decide on an action or technology that will provide the greatest happiness or pleasure for the greatest number. Simple utilitarian or majoritarian ethics, or what is good for the greatest majority, are ineffective in making technological decisions. Under majoritarian rule, it becomes difficult to sustain the rights of minorities and the underprivileged in the world. Although there is nothing ethically wrong with this, consequentialism tends to emphasize prudential over moral action. We calculate our decisions and actions to avoid risk. The other option in ethics is to act on a basis of duty and obligation toward principles and rules, higher spirituality or an intuitive sense of what is good and right. Deontological ethics emphasizes intentions over consequences. What is right or wrong is based on our intentions since consequences are beyond our control. We hold individuals responsible for their intentions, where consequentialism and utilitarianism tend to absolve individuals from responsibilities for consequences. Our conscience and good will ought to be our guides, says deontology. An ethics that is based on the principle that we should always maximize the goods we want or those goods we think are good for all, unless tempered with justice, will be blind to an equitable distribution of these goods (Ferré, 1988). Privilege and duty Copyright © 2007, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited. 78 Petrina go hand in hand. Moral obligation means that we adopt the principles of three golden rules: (1) Do not do unto others what you would not have done to you (Principle of Maleficence). (2) Do unto others as you would that others do unto you (Principle of Beneficence). (3) Weigh actions by what is fair (Principle of Justice). These are summarized as “do no harm,” “try to create good,” and “be fair.” Moral decisions cannot solely be made on scientific or technical reasoning. An automatic default to authority undermines democracy and a basis for technology studies. Ethics and emotions must play a vital role in technology studies. We have to help our students understand consequentialism and utilitarianism, as well as feel the weight of moral obligation. We actually have a moral obligation to our students, to help them take responsibility for their technological decisions. Philosophers of technology, such as Carl Mitcham (1996), say that we have three choices in making technological decisions. We can 1. Assume that the problems are so complex that they must be left to the experts, that is, to scientists, engineers, and ethics counselors; 2. Insist that these problems must be handled by the public, even though the public often lacks adequate technical knowledge or sufficient reflection on the ethical issues involved, because this is what our established values require; and 3. Strive to create an informed public that works with technical professionals and ethics counselors to reach informed decisions. This last option is where technology studies comes in. Informed decision making in technology requires that ethics be taught and explored with students at all grade levels. Informed decision making means that we pay attention to our mission in technology studies to resensitize students to their technological decisions and surroundings. Ethics speaks to the heart with reason, and there is nothing wrong with that. The controversial issues and values clarification methods explained in the next chapter are essential to assist students in their ethical decision making. In general, an ethical analysis of technological decisions ought to proceed as follows (Edgar, 1997, p. 74-75): 1. Assess the relevant facts of the technologies of interest. Establish the facts of the technology as best as you can. (e.g., here are the facts of the automated telephone dialer- autodialer) 2. Identify the fundamental ethical principles of the technology and keep them clearly in mind. Consequentialist ethics will establish a cost-benefit analysis. Deontological ethics will establish prior principles and obligations (e.g., au- Copyright © 2007, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited. Feelings, Values, Ethics, and Skills 79 todialers express rights to free speech; invade privacy; generate junk calls, etc.) 3. Identify which disputes over the technology are concerned with means to an end and which are over the end itself (e.g., disputes over the autodialer itself or over access of private businesses to individuals). 4. Deliberate as is relevant and encourage students to make a decision and act. As Kohlberg and Gilligan found, young children have no problem with ethical reasoning, emotivism, and making moral decisions. Teachers may have to use techniques that allow students to distance themselves from the issue, where the process takes precedence. For older students, the processes of ethical reasoning and emotivism ought to move students from dualities to commitments. Somewhat like Kohlberg and Gilligan, William Perry (1970) and Jane Loevinger (1976) created two models to help teachers give direction to their students’ ethical reasoning (Table 3). Kohlberg’s and Gilligan’s models deal with growth in longer frames of time. Perrys’ and Loevinger’s models deal with positions in the span of an issue. These are models and goals to give direction to teachers. Table 3. Perry’s (1970) and Loevinger’s (1976) ethical reasoning stages Perry Loevinger Basic duality (Issue is either right or wrong) Impulsive (Ignores rules and ethics) Multiplicity (Recognizes options) Relativism (Tolerant of options and choices) Self-interested (Calculates immediate advantage) Conformist (Obedient of rules and authority) Conscientious (Self-critical and responsible) Commitment (Acts on commitment, accepts responsibility) Autonomous (Tolerant) Integrated (Committed to justice) Copyright © 2007, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited. 80 Petrina Technological decision making has gotten increasingly complex and contingent on ethical analysis. The infringements on our privacies and rights that we can tolerate and cannot tolerate in technology are dependent on our ability to make sound ethical analyses. For example, the fundamental liberty to pursue a livelihood is threatened by technologies of automation that governments support and regulate. The tomato picking machine developed at the University of California in the 1990s was responsible for the elimination of 32,000 tomato picking jobs. The question is whether the infringements on the rights to a livelihood were justifiable, even if the technology was profitable and promised a net benefit to society (Consequentialism and utilitarianism). In technology studies, emotions, knowledge, and skills are empowering. Perhaps there is no greater need than for students to learn to use their skills in ethical ways. Skill Acquisition As we acknowledged, cognition, emotion, and action are inseparable. Ethics are inseparable from technical skills. Indeed, do not underestimate the role of cognition, emotion, and ethics in the process of skill acquisition. As we will explain in more detail in Chapter VI, cognition, emotion, judgment and action are interdependent. Many researchers and teachers continue to make the false assumption that emotion, ethics, and cognitive reasoning are simply applied to the development and use of technical skills. They falsely assume that the relationship between emotion, knowledge or judgment and technical skills is application. They assume a priority of knowledge over technical skills. Our task here is to dispel this false assumption. Emotion, knowledge, judgment, and technical skills develop together and are inseparable in experience and practice. In this chapter and the last, we described the articulation and organization of knowledge, emotion and judgment. In this section, we describe the acquisition, articulation, and organization of technical skills. There are four general types of skills: cognitive, emotional, social and sensorimotor skills. We described a range of cognitive skills in the last chapter. In Chapters V and VII, we will discuss problem-solving and social skills. Some refer to emotional and social skills as “soft skills.” Many theorists argue that the acquisition of “hard skills” or technical skills was the essence of industrial education and educational technology. The balance of cognitive, emotional, social and technical skills is the essence of technology studies (head, heart, hand, and feet). Today, technology educators must be prepared to assist students with a wide range of skills. As we indicated, while technical skills are inseparable from cognition and emotions, they are typically characterized by fine motor skills. First and foremost, motor skills are learned, and distinguished from innate capacities and abilities. Individuals may Copyright © 2007, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited. Advanced Teaching Methods for the Technology Classroom Stephen Petrina The University of British Columbia, Canada Information Science Publishing Hershey • London • Melbourne • Singapore ii Acquisition Editor: Senior Managing Editor: Managing Editor: Development Editor: Copy Editor: Typesetter: Cover Design: Printed at: Michelle Potter Jennifer Neidig Sara Reed Kristin Roth Larissa Vinci Marko Primorac Lisa Tosheff Integrated Book Technology Published in the United States of America by Information Science Publishing (an imprint of Idea Group Inc.) 701 E. Chocolate Avenue Hershey PA 17033 Tel: 717-533-8845 Fax: 717-533-8661 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.idea-group.com and in the United Kingdom by Information Science Publishing (an imprint of Idea Group Inc.) 3 Henrietta Street Covent Garden London WC2E 8LU Tel: 44 20 7240 0856 Fax: 44 20 7379 3313 Web site: http://www.eurospan.co.uk Copyright © 2007 by Idea Group Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher. Product or company names used in this book are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI of the trademark or registered trademark. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data eISBN British Cataloguing in Publication Data A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library. All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.