Some Effects of Computer Technology… -Assessing the Ethical Implications - The Research Center on Computing & Society

Text-only Version

Marvin J. Croy
Michael G. Green
James R. Cook

5. Assessing the Ethical Implications

Before discussing the implications of these findings it should be reemphasized that they are both partial and preliminary. Indeed, without attending to their statistical significance as subsequent analyses will, the term ’findings’ is premature. Nevertheless, this data does suggest a number of possible outcomes which can provide a basis for ethical reflection in this context. For example, if having special meetings with the instructor turns out to be associated with increased in-class student responsiveness, questions about the worth of that responsiveness arise. In what follows, this question and others of a similar nature will be explored primarily for the purpose of sketching a framework for assessing the ethical value of such possible results. In addition, more will be said about the ways in which this study serves to predict the consequences of a technological innovation prior to its implementation.

At the outset of this report, the present study was characterized as a dual process of documenting empirical consequences and explicating the ethical value of those consequences. Thus far the focus has been upon the empirical component. Yet questions concerning the normative component are of equal importance. How exactly is the value of some empirical consequences to be explicated? What determines whether a given result is or is not of value? One approach to be explored here stems from John Dewey’s view that “the specific values discussed in educational theories coincide with aims which are usually urged.”4 This suggests that the value of some outcome might be assessed by means of its relationship (or lack thereof) to educational aims. That is, a given outcome may be shown to be an instantiation of some value which is implicit in the expression of an educational aim.

If statements of educational aims are to provide a basis for determining the value of particular pedagogical outcomes, a number of issues must be addressed. First, educational aims are wide-ranging. They vary from one institution to another and may at times seem inconsistent, as in the attempt to teach both cooperation and a competitive spirit. Statements of educational aims also differ on a scale that ranges from more general to more specific. Controversy may arise over what specific actions or policies serve as a means to some generally-stated end. The diversity in educational aims is also evident in social expectations. Students are expected to learn much more than the sum total of the course content in their educational careers. They are expected to acquire a sensitivity to individual differences and a respect for the right of others, to learn to communicate, cooperate, and compete in positive ways, to develop a healthy self-concept, etc., even though there are rarely any particular courses in these “subjects.” Educational values may thus be reflected in the wider aims of education which transcend particular disciplines. The complexity produced by the wide range of educational aims can be appreciated by pursuing some of the possible outcomes of the present study. Assume, for example, that the consequences of having student-teacher meetings in the present context is that students become more active and involved within the classroom but that this activity does not facilitate learning. Assume further that students preferred receiving their feedback and diagnoses from the teacher rather than from the computer, and that they developed more positive attitudes toward the instructor and their classmates as a result of the special meetings. Would these results be valuable? In particular, would they be worth preserving by refusing to replace the human-supplied feedback by computer-supplied feedback? The value of increased learning and performance is clear because of its relationship to a central aim of education, but the value of increased responsiveness in class or more positive attitudes, when divorced from any increased learning of the subject matter being taught, is not so clear. These results would supposedly be of value by relationship to the wider aims of education. These aims are more difficult to identify and their importance relative to the more central aims is certainly difficult to assess precisely. How much would one’s judgment change, for instance, if the positive impact on student responsiveness and attitudes were accompanied by a decrease in subject matter learning?

These questions point in the direction of future inquiry which will go hand-in-hand with continued empirical research. Much of that inquiry will explore the use of statements of educational aims as a framework for assessing the value of particular empirical results. Can these aims be reliably identified? Can their corresponding values be explicated? What sorts of considerations justify educational aims, particularly those placed in the “wider” category? What kinds of educational theories would make the wider or peripheral aims more central? These and related questions will be pursued during the second half of this study. As already noted, they constitute elements of the normative aspects of a study which has both empirical and normative components. It should be clear, however, that these components are not independent of each other. The idea that the consequences of some innovation can be first determined and then evaluated in an ethical light is too simplistic. One does not determine THE consequences in the sense that all are considered and measured. Rather, only certain consequences, already suspected of being ethically relevant, are explored. Something similar happens when putting a research hypothesis to the test. The observations made in that test are selected from a large number of possibilities. Only those which are logically related to the hypothesis are considered. Likewise, the possibility of having ethical relevance guides the empirical focus of research concerned with actual outcomes and their value. It also provides the impetus for further inquiry into the foundations for that possibility. What results is a process of refinement and clarification in which the relationship of certain outcomes to certain values is made more explicit.

One consideration of significance in the conduct of this research involves the issue of managing technology. The question of whether the student-teacher meetings should be replaced by student-computer interaction has been the prime motivation for this research. Much of the research design has been built around this concern, and the way in which this concern is addressed bears further discussion. In the descriptions given above, the expression “human-supplied versus computer-supplied feedback” or some equivalent is often used. This may give the impression that the only difference in treatment between the two student groups is whether the diagnostic feedback comes directly from the teacher or from the computer. But actually there are other associated differences. For example a student may ask a question and receive an answer during the special meeting, or a student may express some doubts and/or fears and receive some reassurance and/or special motivation. Neither of these interactions are possible with the computer-supplied feedback. So, the two student groups are not being treated equally except for the origin of the information they receive. There is a difference in the information itself.

Earlier it was stated that the content of the diagnostic feedback was identical for a given student difficulty regardless of the origin of the feedback. This statement is in need of some elaboration, however. It is evident that students receive other types of information besides that of diagnosis and prescription. Also, students may demonstrate additional weaknesses during the course of their individual meetings and thus receive augmented diagnoses.

All of these complexities are recognized in the present research design. The main concern has been to determine, prior to implementation, what the consequences would be of replacing the special meetings with an expanded computer program. In that regard, the differences between having human-supplied or computer-supplied feedback in the context of the current study should be identical to the shift, from one semester to the next, of changing from a course based on human-supplied feedback to a course based on computer-supplied feedback. This shift is in fact simulated in the existing research procedures. The main objective of marshaling sound evidence concerning the empirical consequences of this potential shift is thus secured. Attaining this objective supports the effort to intelligently manage computer technology. It does so by contributing to the accurate prediction of the effects of introducing a technological innovation prior to actually implementing that innovation. If having computer-supplied feedback results in an increase in learning and other desirable results, without an increase in undesirable results or a decrease in previously obtained advantages, then work on producing a system for generating computer-supplied feedback should begin. At the very least, the human-generated, computer-delivered feedback which is actually provided during this study should be continued. It may turn out, of course, that different types of students may react differently to the different treatment conditions. That is, students may possess various characteristics which predispose them toward increased learning and positive attitudes under one mode of feedback as opposed to the other. This prospect opens up a number of possibilities that will be investigated during the second year of this study. That investigation will address the opportunity for applying the results of this research toward increased individualization. Increased individualization has been one of the chief motivations for the development of computer-assisted instruction. This opportunity also opens the door to explicating the role of individualization as a value and aim within the American educational system. The combined empirical/normative emphasis of this research will thus continue.

Back to the top

Go to: Conclusions

Home > Teaching Resources > Computer Ethics Issues in Academic Computing > Some Effects of Computer Technology on Human Interaction and Individualization in the Teaching of Deductive Logic

The Research Center on Computing & Society
at Southern Connecticut State University
501 Crescent Street • New Haven, CT 06515
Director: (203) 392-6790 • e-mail: webmaster@computerethics.org

© 2000 – 2007 – Research Center on Computing & Society