The Ethics of Evaluating Instructional Computing
Marvin J. Croy
Moor analyzes this case in terms of a conflict between the need for educational research and the rights of students. This conflict is made explicit by means of the following argument in which the first premise represents “the instructor’s position” while the second premise represents “the student’s position.”
(1) In order to properly evaluate innovative instructional methods, complete and carefully controlled experiments involving students must be performed.
(2) If complete and carefully controlled experiments involving students are performed, then some students are treated unfairly without their consent.
(3) Consequently, either innovative educational methods are not properly evaluated or some students are treated unfairly without their consent.
Developers of CAI are thus faced with a choice between two undesirable alternatives. They must repudiate either their responsibility to develop sound pedagogy or their responsibility to treat students fairly. After acknowledging that experimental studies are not necessary for many types of program evaluation and are often extremely difficult to execute, Moor concludes that “at some point in the development of CAI only controlled experiment… can determine the real effectiveness of CAI.”(3) Given this support for the instructor’s position, the question is whether the adverse consequences predicted for students in the second premise actually occur. This leads to a consideration of the “students’ position.” This position is presented as centering around two ethical issues: unequal educational opportunities and lack of consent. In respect to the first issue, students believe that they have a right to equal educational opportunities such that no student should be deprived in this regard. Nevertheless, Moor points out the limitations of this view.
Different and even unequal educational opportunities do not automatically indicate a violation of student rights.... An instructor can offer some different educational opportunities without moral consequences. For example, an instructor ethically may use different textbooks in different sections. Or, trivially, an instructor may help one student, whom the instructor happens to meet in the hall, without being obligated to help other students in the same way.(4)
An important component of this analysis is Moor’s belief that students in the control group are receiving normal and adequate instruction and that an instructor is obligated to provide no more than this. Once this obligation is fulfilled, the necessity for requesting student consent is questionable. It is the instructor’s prerogative, not the student’s, to select instructional methods. Normally, experiments in education differ from medical experiments which involve deception and possible harm from particular treatment conditions. Consequently, “students should be informed about what will happen during the term.”(5) But, further consent or approval from students is not required.
Moor does agree, however, with the students’ claim that “some inherent injustice occurs when an instructor arbitrarily divides a class so that (as far as the instructor has good reason 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.”6 In order to resolve the conflict bound up in this injustice and the need for carrying out controlled studies, Moor proposes that “final grades of the control group (experimental group) should be raised at the end of the course if the experimental group (control group) does significantly better and additional education should be offered at no charge to make up for any deficits in learning incurred because of the experiment.”(7) Hereafter, this proposal will be referred to as “Moor’s resolution.”
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