Download West Chester University Ethics-Emphasis Program Handbook and more Study notes Medical ethics in PDF only on Docsity!
West Chester University
Ethics-Emphasis Program Handbook
Pages
Table of Contents 1
I. Purpose of the Handbook 2
II. Purpose of Ethics Instruction 3
III. The Process of Obtaining the Ethics
Emphasis Designation 4
IV. Guidelines and Recommendations for
Ethics-Emphasis Courses 5
A. Criteria for the Ethics-Emphasis Designation 5
B. Suggestions Concerning Evaluation 6
C. Recommended Ethics Activities 7
D. Examples of Ethics Strategies Used by WCU Instructors 9
V. Ethics Across the Curriculum (EAC) 14
VI. Sample Materials from WCU Faculty 18
VII. Ethical Reasoning Value Rubric 34
VIII. Appendices 35
- Appendix A: Checklist for Ethics Courses
- Appendix B: A Generic Code of Ethics
- Appendix C: Course Map Examples
- Appendix D: In-class Resources
- Appendix E: Book Report Rubric; Discussion Board Rubric
- Appendix F: The Eight Key Questions (James Madison University)
- Appendix G: The Defining Issues Test Description
I. Purpose of the Handbook
This handbook was written by the original Ethics Subcommittee members of the General Education Committee in CAPC to aid faculty members in providing common ethics-emphasis competencies in their courses, and to enhance student learning about ethics. It serves as a guide for those interested in creating Ethics-Emphasis courses, but it is by no means intended to be a replacement for attending an Ethics Workshop or Faculty Seminar at WCU. The Handbook also provides details on the development of Ethics Across the Curriculum programs--a result of National Science Foundation funding--the foundations of which include cross-curricula ethics emphasis courses. These programs address the necessity of exposing our students to ways of noticing and examining the ethical issues they will encounter in their daily lives and in their careers. In addition to explaining the requirements for Ethics-Emphasis courses and the basis for this initiative, this Handbook is also a source of ideas and models. It provides recommended ethics activities, as well as explanations of those activities to give interested faculty an idea of what ethics content may be used across the curriculum. Faculty are also encouraged to develop their own. Ethics Subcommittee August 2019 Dr. Joan Woolfrey Dr. Cheryl Monturo
III. The Process of Obtaining the Ethics Emphasis
Designation
It is strongly suggested that a faculty member new to teaching ethics proceed by first participating in an Ethics Workshop or Faculty Seminar held periodically at WCU. They can then begin the process of developing a new course syllabus or modifying an existing one to reflect the criteria stated in the “Criteria for Ethics Courses” (see Section III) and the “Checklist for Ethics Course Criteria” (see Appendix A). When the new syllabus is finished, it should first be submitted to the faculty member’s department for approval. After acquiring department approval, faculty should complete the necessary information in the Course Inventory Management (CIM) system including upload of the syllabus and any other required documents. The course should be designated as a full CAPC review. The application will then be electronically forwarded to the Ethics Subcommittee of CAPC and potentially other subcommittees depending on other course designations. The Ethics Subcommittee is comprised of (at least) 2 appointed faculty members with extensive knowledge in the areas of Philosophy and/or Ethics. After reviewing the application, the Ethics Subcommittee will either return the application to the applicant with questions and/or a request for revisions, or forward the application and recommendation for Ethics designation to the CAPC General Education Committee. From there, the application will go through other required Committees as per CAPC bylaws ending with CAPC Executive Board. It then will be included on the agenda for the next scheduled CAPC General Assembly. If members of CAPC approve the application, it will be forwarded to the Provost. Finally, with the Provost’s signature, the course will receive the Ethics designation as of the date specified by the Provost.
IV. Guidelines and Recommendations for Ethics-
Emphasis Courses
A. Criteria for the Ethics-Emphasis Designation Ethics Across the Curriculum courses at West Chester University must meet the following criteria. (Please note that although Distance Education is not inconsistent with these criteria, you must clearly demonstrate how you will meet these criteria in a distance education format.)
- Ethics courses must engage students in a variety of activities that encourage them to problem-see and problem-solve with an ethical lens. Ethics courses should provide at least three different kinds of activities, such as: a) in-class collaborative activities (debates, case study analyses, etc.), b) formal writing or multimedia projects, and c) informal activities, such as class discussions, in class writing reflections, interviews, journaling, and the like.
- Ethics courses may provide students with instruction in discipline-specific thinking on ethics, or in more general ethical theories from the discipline of Philosophy. If they are discipline-specific, Ethics courses should include lessons focusing on ethical frameworks for acquiring skills for ethical decision-making specific to the discipline. This will include instructor-led practice in processes for evaluating decision-specific dilemmas or case studies. The syllabus should make clear that these lessons take place throughout the course.
- Ethics courses encourage collaborative activities and assignments that include clear indication that there are better and worse answers to ethical questions, and that there are processes through which those judgments can be made. While there frequently may not be single absolute answers, understanding the range of solutions that are appropriate vs. those that are inappropriate is one of the goals of studying ethics across the curriculum.
- Ethics courses encourage ethical exploration with instructor guidance, and will offer students practice in identifying a diverse range of perspectives on ethical issues, putting oneself in another’s shoes and/or presenting arguments charitably which are not your own perspective.
- Ethics course syllabi should designate at least one writing/multimedia assignment as a candidate for upload to the ePortfolio.
- Ethics course syllabi should indicate clearly that the course is an approved Gen Ed course and will focus on ethical problem-seeing, ethical reasoning and ethical problem- solving in the discipline under study.
- Ethics course syllabi should make clear the percentage of the final grade to be derived from the ethics components. Should be ≥ 25%. The graded content can include a
- Be clear on specific processes for making ethical judgments.
- Demonstrate (rather than merely state) how students will acquire practice in problem- seeing, moral reasoning, and problem-solving.
- Include hands-on (discussions, collaborations, debates, written evaluations, etc.) activities which are especially valuable for confidence-building.
- Refer to the rubric CAPC uses for evaluating the overall goals of E-emphasis courses: Ethical Reasoning VALUE Rubric.
- Note: “Assigning essays to students in which they are to offer an ethical analysis of a case, including offering a judgment of what ought to be done and reasons supporting this judgment (i.e., practicing relevant reasoning/reflective skills, not only articulating awareness of what is at stake) is probably the single most effective means for securing the students’ learning both in awareness and in reasoning/reflective skills.” (David T. Ozar, “Learning Outcomes for Ethics across the Curriculum Programs,” Teaching Ethics , Fall 2001, p. 20.)
- Consider the use of a course map (See Appendix C for 2 examples and The Quality Matters site on developing course maps). C. Recommended Ethics Activities While it is impossible in written form to communicate the richness to be sought in the in-class setting, below are some examples of the kinds of activities that could be done in-class to generate thoughtful deliberation on ethical matters.
- Case Study Method: In Appendix D, we include numerous resources that offer case studies and discuss ways of building your own cases. With a particular case study in front of them, students should work through the case with guided questions: Step 1: What's the most important question to be answered [in the case in question]? What's the "ethical epicenter?" Step 2: What still needs to be determined? What information don't you have (that it is possible to get) that would be helpful in deciding what to do? Step 3: Who are the "stakeholders?" List those who have an interest in the outcome of this case. Be thorough. Step 4: What are the relevant ethical values in this case for each stakeholder? (The following list is suggestive, not exhaustive, so add and supplement: protecting humans from harm, fairness, promoting others’ welfare, truthfulness, trust, respect for others’ choices, promise-keeping, empathy, altruism, dignity, compassion, integrity.) Step 5: What alternative courses of action are there? How many different ways can you come up with for resolving this problem? Be creative. Step 6: Decide on the three most acceptable alternatives from Step 5, and the four most important relevant values from Step 4, and fill in the chart, below. Then, decide, amongst
those, which take priority. Apply a 3 to the alternative which best reflects the values you list. Apply a 1 to that alternative which least reflects the value. (2's are for in-betweens.) Use the last row to calculate. Values // Alternatives below // to the right →
A: B: C:
Ethics Calculation → Based on your calculation, what should be done? Defend your response here:
- In-class Debates: These work best when students are asked to defend the side of the question with which they are least in agreement, or, alternatively, when students are assigned their positions randomly. Several articles offering options appear in Appendix D. Teaching students to recognize obstacles to good argumentation is an important aspect of using debates. Tips for identifying a weak argument: ● Attacks the person instead of the argument; ● Is based on assumption rather than fact; ● Gives the impression that there are only two possibilities when there may be more; ● Appeals to emotion, tradition, popularity or patriotism; ● Scapegoats or avoids responsibility by placing blame; ● Presents a caricature of a person or group; ● Relies on an extreme example to justify a position (Brown & Keeley, 2010). * * * * * *
- In-class Writing: In-class writing, followed by discussion can be an excellent way to get students thinking about the ethical issues in their everyday lives. Examples of prompts:
First, identify important stakeholders in the case of Daraprim’s price going up. Collectively, we will identify these four: pharmaceutical companies, patients, hospitals, FDA. Then, we will form 4-person groups and debate about whether it is ethical to raise the drug price. Each of you will take a role as one of the identified stakeholders. As homework, please do research on this issue. To strengthen your argument, use facts, numbers, and expert testimony; please bring one page of debate notes and turn it in after the debate; in your debate notes, please list at least 3 points that support your position. Formal writing assignment: writing debate notes. Since this note will incorporate the research students will conduct on this issue, it is a research-based report. (From Dr. Liu’s MGT313)
- VoiceThread Book Report : VoiceThread allows students to report on a book in a creative and interactive manner. This platform permits both faculty and peers to view the "book report" and provide feedback. Given that there are so many books related to bioethics, this platform was also chosen to allow students to learn about multiple bioethical issues in a brief period of time. In the past this has led to increased student interest in reading additional books after the end of the course. Assignment Overview In Week #1, you'll find a link to participate in a Doodle poll. You will have the ability to sign up for one of the books listed at the bottom of this page. Select a book that you wish to read this semester. You may select only one book and no one else can select the same book. You will read this book independently over the course of the semester and will create a 10 - minute VoiceThread presentation using the following guidelines. Questions for you to answer 1. How much does the book agree or clash with your professional and personal view of the world, and what you consider right and wrong? You may use some quotes or paraphrasing of text as examples of how it agrees with and supports what you think about the world, about right and wrong, and about what you think it is to be human. Use quotes or paraphrasing of text and examples to discuss how the text agrees or disagrees with what you think about the world, history, and about right and wrong. 2. How were your professional and personal views and opinions challenged or changed by this text, if at all? Did the text communicate with you? Why or why not? Give examples of how your views might have changed or been strengthened (or perhaps, of why the text
failed to convince you, the way it is). Please do not write "I agree with everything the author wrote," since everybody disagrees about something, even if it is a tiny point. Use quotes or paraphrasing of text to illustrate your points of challenge, or where you were persuaded, or where it left you cold.
- How will your professional practice change as a result of this text, if at all? In what ways will it change?
- To sum up, what is your overall reaction to the text? To whom would you recommend this text? Would you read something else like this, or by this same author, in the future or not? Why or why not? If directions are not followed, the assignment will be returned to you for re-submission with a total possible score of 90%. Please do not go over the 10-minute limit. (See Appendix G for Rubric) (from Dr. Monturo’s NSG537)
- EthicsGame: Addition of the EthicsGame to this course is new and intended to offer an innovative way to complete a values clarification exercise (ELI) and to respond to various case studies. This platform not only allows students to stop and start at any time, but to pace themselves in completing the assignments. It also provides a different format for completing assignments versus a written case study. The flexibility of the platform was particularly important since it is easily edited to meet the needs of students from semester to semester. Use of the ELI data is also important for students to understand the differences in how they and their peers see the world. EthicsGame plots the information on a graph without identifiers, so students can see the homogeneity or diversity in their particular class. Overview EthicsGame is an online learning tool that we'll be using for the first time this semester. I'm excited to include this product in your learning and hope to hear much feedback about it. There are two parts to this product, the Ethical Lens Inventory (ELI) and then Case Studies and/or Hot Topics. The inventory is a values clarification type exercise and everyone completes the same one. As I mentioned in my communication to you last week, the cases will relate to your specific track in the MSN program; i.e. Nurse Educator or Clinical Nurse Specialist and will therefore be different. Assignments ○ ELI Video ○ View EthicsGame Overview of Four Ethical Lenses ○ Complete ELI EthicsGame Exercises: ○ MSN CNS Track - Sinking Ship (4 modules) due Monday of Week 3 by 11:30PM
● The discussion board is not a live chat. All students will participate in the discussion (asynchronously) on the D2L learning platform. The discussions are scholarly conversations between the class members related to the topics posted. The faculty will monitor and at times enter the discussion. These postings must address the questions posed- for example, focusing on the ethical issue of conducting a study on salt consumption in prisoners, vs the clinical issue of a high salt diet. Once addressed, the posting should then tie together required readings with potential practice examples and include your preferred ethical lens from the ELI. Postings should focus on the ethical topic only; please remember this is a bioethics course and therefore keep this focus in mind. ● The discussion board will open at 6:00am on Sunday. In order to be sure that everyone has time to have a conversation, the first post is due no later than Tuesday at 11:30 PM EST, additional responses no later than Saturday at 11:30pm EST. If a student misses the Tuesday deadline, it will be reflected in the rubric. If a student misses a discussion topic, they cannot make up the assignment. A post is defined as a minimum of 75 words; maximum 200 words. For further details see the Discussion Board Rubric (below). You must meet all criteria for a level to achieve that score. (see Appendix E for rubric) (from Dr. Monturo’s NSG537)
outlines a host of unintended and unfortunate consequences if these efforts are left uncoordinated.^6 The first unfortunate consequence is in communicating the perspective that all ethical decisions are relative and/or subjective. College students are exposed to a wide variety of values as they interact with their peers, and often this is the first time they have come to experience perspectives significantly different from their own. One frequent reaction to any conflict over values, dubbed “student relativism” by Steven Satris,^7 finds the students deferring to an unreflective “we all have different opinions.” This tendency toward ethical relativism is further supported by the implicit message that disciplines have their own codes of ethics, and even further that these fail to apply across the variety of life situations students will face. Another negative consequence that Matchett identifies is the tendency to internalize a view of ethics as dependent on an external authority, whether that is an accrediting body, a student code of conduct, or a fiat on a syllabus. This view can serve to discourage students from seeing ethical decision making as requiring their own critical reflection and examination or desiring to develop the skills necessary to do so. Finally, an uncoordinated approach to ethics can also carry with it the implicit message that ethical reflection is somehow less important than the more “objective” accomplishments available through reasoned inquiry focused on the particular “content” of a given class. In this context, ethical deliberation is often seen as “all talk” with no clear outcome and/or just a matter of personal proclivity. The growing number of colleges and universities adopting some version of Ethics Across the Curriculum comes out of a recognition of these pitfalls, and a conviction that we can do better in preparing students for ethical deliberation around the wide variety of issues they will inevitably face, and for taking their place as informed global citizens reflective about the implications of their decisions. West Chester University is well-positioned to initiate our own approach to Ethics Across the Curriculum —of which an ethics-emphasis course in every major is a solid first step. The implementation of the new general education program provides opportunities to incorporate explicit treatment of ethical deliberation in not only a single ethics-emphasis course, but also in first year experiences, capstone courses, and student’s electronic portfolios. In addition, President Fiorentino has clearly articulated ethical decision-making as an important component of a West Chester University education, and our mission statement emphasizes the need to “understand the ethical implications of decisions and the world in which [we] live.” These are important first steps for providing a path toward making Ethics Across the Curriculum a reality for our students. Implementation We’ve begun to implement very general concepts of EAC at WCU including: (^6) New Directions for Higher Education , 142, Summer 2008. (^7) Stephen Satris. 1986., "Student Relativism." Teaching Philosophy 9(3): 193-205.
- Workshops to train faculty developing (or modifying) syllabi in their disciplines to fulfill an “E” designation in the General Education requirements. In the winter of 2019, we ran a three- day workshop that taught Applied Moral Philosophy to interested participants. We had 23 participants, 11 of whom submitted new or modified syllabi that were approved by CAPC as designated “E” courses.
- A seminar program to provide faculty development in ethical theory and its application, with an eye to creating or revamping ethics courses in their home discipline that is in line with EAC program (began Fall 2019). In Fall 2019, we are running a Curriculum Integration Seminar, much like those run in the early 2000s aimed at creating appropriate “J” (Diverse Communities) courses for the university’s Diverse Communities Gen Ed goals. These require 3 credits of AWA and 7 faculty have been approved for this. Faculty will acquire a working knowledge of moral philosophy, sufficient to ground a course in ethical decision-making in their discipline, will help to build the database of resources for the relevant disciplines on campus, and will be offered a variety of pedagogical tools for examination and evaluation of ethical/moral issues in, around and beyond the specific expertise of the faculty member. The seminar will culminate in the production of syllabi for courses already in the catalog or brand-new proposals which will be aimed at the CAPC approval pipeline. It is hoped that additional steps will be taken in the near future. These include:
- The codification of basic ethical values and principles embraced by the university, communicated consistently throughout the campus (e.g., an Honor Code, student handbooks, the student catalogs, etc.)
- Workshops to train faculty to incorporate the ethics components into FYE courses and Capstone courses.
- The development of an ethics resource website for instructors.
- An Annual Presidential Lecture on Ethics, which would focus on topics that have broad appeal across disciplines, or on particularly important and timely topics in ethics. Integral to the success of implementing an Ethics Across the Curriculum program is developing a shared set of terms and meanings, and shared methods of addressing ethics issues. For example, James Madison University developed an 8KQ system (Eight Key Questions) (See Appendix F), a fairly open procedure of determining which of eight ethical concerns apply to a given case, to what extent and in what priority.^8 Such a system allows for common language across disciplines, a common way to structure discussions and assignments, and a common way to assess student learning and performance. This common language can develop among faculty engaged in workshops and seminars, and through feedback from a variety of faculty bodies. FYE courses and Capstone courses plan: The goal would be for ethics facilitators to develop and run one day or half-day workshops that allow instructors who will be teaching these courses to get up to speed on the Case Study method (^8) https://www.jmu.edu/ethicalreasoning/8-key-questions.shtml
VI. Sample Syllabus from WCU Faculty
(with permission from Dr. Schnell)
The Politics of Diversity Dr. Frauke Schnell
PSC101 / Office hours:
fschnell@wcupa.edu (Andersen, 3rd^ Floor, Political
Science Dept.) Distance Learning Statement: Distance education uses technology to facilitate learning without the limitations of time or place. In order to capitalize on this flexibility and become a successful online learner, participants should consider the following: Self-motivation and self-discipline are critical: Students are expected to actively participate in the online classroom. They should log in daily, complete all readings, and respond fully to conference discussion topics or other assignments. All assignments must be submitted on time. Planning and organization: Online students need disciplined work habits, effective time management skills, and the ability to work both alone and collaboratively. Also, please note that the winter term takes place within a condensed format. Regular classes meet daily for 3 hours and you are expected to complete a similar workload. Communication skills: In the online environment, communication takes place through the written word. Students need strong English reading and writing skills in order to express their thoughts as they participate in discussions and other classroom assignments. Technology skills: Students are expected to be competent in the use of computers, the World Wide Web, and commonly used software programs such as the Microsoft Office Suite of applications. Students without experience using the university’s learning management system (Desire2Learn) can contact the instructor and/or the Student Help Desk to arrange instruction. Students will also be given instruction on the first day of class on how to successfully navigate and complete assignments within the Desire2Learn system. Students must have access to the most current version of Internet Explorer/Safari/Mozilla. It is expected that all students will be able to open Microsoft Office 2007 files. Students are encouraged to contact the student help desk to ensure that their computer equipment if sufficient for the D2L operating system. Students must be able to readily access the internet via cable or broadband as files may be large in this course. In this course we will be using the Desire2Learn (D2L) Learning Management System. If you are new to D2L please read the support manual explaining the various tools and functions. If you have questions about using D2L please contact the instructor or the helpdesk.
Teaching Philosophy and Goals: My goals for this course are a product of my perspective on the broader goals of higher education. Most importantly, I feel that college should be an environment that promotes intellectual development beyond the mastery of course specific content. Hence, I do not want you to merely memorize facts from the lectures, discussions or readings. My goal is for you to think deeply about how the government institutions, policies and problems we discuss impact your life and the life of others, how policymaking processes and outcomes compare to American values such as equality and liberty, how ethical reasoning contributes to civic life, and how you can act to address social and political problems. Throughout the course, I will try my best to facilitate classroom activities and discussions that will help you become engaged with the course material. However, education is a cooperative endeavor that requires you to participate actively in the learning experience. What you get out of this course will in large part be a product of what you put into it. If at any point in time you are having trouble understanding the material, please contact me. If you have interesting ideas, please share them with me. Course Ethics : You have several ethical responsibilities in this course. For this adventure to work for all of us, each of us needs to do the readings and think about them. We must respect each other’s positions on the readings, and honor intellectual experiments (the “what if….” positions); that means people should be willing and able to change their minds, to defend their positions, and challenge the positions of others. Critically, one should never confuse an argument with the person making the argument – positions are not people. This means you should not attack people, only their claims and you should do so based on reasoning. Similarly, you should defend your positions as if they were ideas to be kicked around, not children to be protected. Cheating and plagiarizing are not acceptable. They will be punished to the greatest extent permitted by West Chester University. All exams, papers, and other work products are to be completed in conformance with the WCU Code of Academic Integrity. Course Description: PSC101 is an approved Behavioral and Social Science General Education course , as well as a Diversity (J) and an Ethics Requirement (E) course. In this course we will examine American government by analyzing how historically underrepresented and marginalized groups such as women, members of the LGBTQA community, racial minorities and the poor have or have not been represented by the American political system and its institutions. In addition, the course examines how different theoretical approaches such as pluralism, elitism, socialism, liberalism and critical race theory value the concept of equality vs. individual liberty, and how social movements have contributed to social change. By focusing on elements of political culture and social experiences of these groups, we will also consider how historical and cultural contexts have shaped the differential experiences of individuals and how race, class, gender, and sexual orientation influence an individual’s role in the political system. Within this context, this course will include discussions of the U.S. Constitution in both historical and contemporary contexts, social movements, interest groups and political parties, voting patterns, the media, public opinion, the Congress, President, Supreme Court, civil rights and civil liberties, as well as economic and social policy. These materials and discussions are embedded in a political science ethics framework. This means that we will examine questions about ethical leadership, the ‘character’ of elected officials and the ‘morality’ of political decision making and resulting public policies. In order to probe the question of ethics in politics and government, the course discusses eight ethical criteria (i.e., fairness, outcomes, responsibilities, character, liberty,
