The Ethics of Evaluating Instructional Computing
Marvin J. Croy
3. Considerations of These Analyses
In providing their analyses, Moor and Overall make a number of
recommendations. Some of these are directed to the particular hypothetical case
described and specify how the instructor caught in this mid-semester predicament
should respond. Other recommendations move beyond this question and address
general issues of evaluating CAI. These are the main concern here and it is
clear that this hypothetical case highlights ethical issues involved in instituting
and assessing educational innovations in general. In one important respect,
however, the case analyzed is not representative of controlled evaluations of
CAI nor of assessments of educational innovation in general. In the hypothetical
case, the superiority of the experimental treatment is presented as a given.
In actual cases of evaluating CAI, the superiority of CAI over traditional methods
is in doubt. Indeed, many empirical studies attempting to demonstrate that superiority
have failed to do so. Consequently, the efficacy of these programs should not
be assumed when discussing the ways in which students may be deprived or harmed
by controlled evaluations of CAI. It is not clear to what extent this assumption
underlies either Moor’s or Overall’s conclusion about CAI evaluation
in general. Moor’s parenthetical qualification does seem crucial since
his resolution is designed to address the “inherent injustice [which] occurs
when an instructor arbitrarily divides a class so that (as the instructor may
have good reasons to believe) one half receives substantially more educational
assistance than the other half even though both halves receive at least a normal
amount of instruction.”(12) This raises the question of whether Moor’s
resolution would be required if the instructor did not have good reason to believe
that the control group was being disadvantaged. A similar question can be raised
about Overall’s recommendation to compare courses before and after the
introduction of CAI, if it is based on the assumption that students are automatically
making sacrifices, being harmed, or being deprived when assigned to control
groups. In any event, the issue to be addressed here concerns the responsibilities
and rights of instructors and students in the course of evaluating techniques
the effectiveness of which is genuinely in doubt.
This issue is important because students have a right
to effective instruction and they should not be forcefully grouped in
ways that preclude members of different groups from receiving equally
effective instruction. The concept of equally effective instruction underlies
the appeal to equal educational opportunities in this context and has
an important relationship to the instructor’s responsibility for
providing optimum instruction. In order to elaborate this point, further
consideration will be given to the instructor’s responsibility for
(1) ensuring equal educational opportunities, (2) providing optimum instruction,
and (3) respecting the requirement of informed consent.
Go to: 3.1 Equal Educational Opportunity
Home > Teaching Resources > Computer Ethics Issues in Academic Computing > The Ethics of Evaluating Instructional Computing
HOME | IN
THE NEWS | RESEARCH
RESOURCES
TEACHING RESOURCES | STUDENT
RESOURCES | LINKS
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 – 2004 – Research Center on Computing & Society