Chapter 1

Chapter 4

Ethics and the Assessment of Technological Impacts on Society

Robert C. Wicklein

The University of Georgia

Athens, GA

Technological progress impacting societies and cultures in the United States and around the world continues to advance at exponential rates. Scientists and technologists have designed systems to put people into outer space, clone animals, and provide telecommunications to all parts of the globe but have failed to clean the slums of Calcutta or elevate the standard of living of millions of people who live in abject poverty around the planet. As a whole, humans have become incredibly competent at developing new science and technology but have failed to correct the age-old social and environmental problems that have plagued mankind for generations. As stated by Kristin Shrader-Frechette and Laura Westra (1997), “Humans’ intellectual progress often outstrips their moral and ethical development.” (p.3). We are witnesses to a civilization that steadily loses ground in moral and ethical arenas while at the same time making incredible leaps in the advancement and development of science and technology.

Vanderburg (2000) speculated, “Modern civilization is lost in a labyrinth of technology created by its social and environmental implications.” (p. xi). We have developed highly complex systems that churn out a myriad of high-tech devices while at the same time becoming more calloused and ignorant about the impact of these devices on society and the environment. Is there a solution to the burdens that science and technology place on society and the environment? Do we as a society have the intellectual and, more importantly, the moral fortitude to recast the way in which we go about developing our planet? Can we become more proactive in ways that prevent social and environmental blunders as we develop technology? The answer to these questions can be found only if we are able to understand the labyrinth of technology.

The motto of the 1933 Chicago World’s Fair was, “Science Finds, Industry Applies, Man Conforms” (Norman, 1993, p. xx). Although this motto would probably not be acceptable in today’s politically correct culture, it may very well be accurate in describing how most industrialized societies function. It is not uncommon to hear people describe their lifestyles in relation to options that technology provides for them with little or no discussion about the limitations that technology places on them. For example, with the advent of wireless communication technology (a technology that has become pervasive in the U.S. society within the past 10 years), many business activities and transactions have an integral tie to this form of technology. The average businessperson cannot imagine going to work without a cell phone or PDA. It would be a great impediment to conducting business if these technological systems failed or did not function correctly. The necessity of meeting with clients or co-workers face to face has been drastically diminished with the advent of these forms of technology. Regardless of how positively or negatively you may perceive this technology, it has had a huge impact on society and can be construed as an example of how “man” conforms to technology (remember business activities were performed successfully for centuries without wireless communication devices).

What impact have wireless communication devices had on society? Have wireless communication devices made business activities better? If so, how? Have wireless communication devices made business activities worse? If so, how? What impacts have wireless communication devices had on human relationships? How can we measure the impacts of wireless communication devices on society? These are the types of ethical questions that need to be asked as we consider the impacts that technology has on society.

The focus of this chapter will be the role of ethics in assessing technological impacts on society and the importance of ethics in development of sustainable forms of technology. The narrative will discuss the various forms of ethical thinking used to guide decision making in business, industrial, social, and political systems. In addition and as an application for technology teacher education, an examination of the Standards for Technological Literacy (2000) (specifically Standards 4, 5, 6) will focus on the principles and values that teacher educators should be exploring with pre-service and in-service teachers with regard to technological impacts on society. The key points addressed in the chapter are: (a) ethical worldviews – their impact on technology, (b) the role of technology teacher education in the teaching of ethics, (c) interpreting the Standards for Technological Literacy with regard to ethics instruction, and (d) a sample instructional activity.

The significance of this chapter is that it will spotlight some of the significant issues and problems that are integral to understanding the ethics behind the technological impacts on society. Attention will be directed at the root of ethical decision making as it applies to the development and utilization of technology to extend human capability.

Ethical Worldviews – Their Impact on Technology

There is almost a limitless number of worldviews (philosophies) that would address the issues related to ethics and the assessment of technological impacts on society. However, for the purposes of this book and chapter only five worldviews will be presented. These views represent the bulk of current thinking in the underlying ethics of technological impacts on society. The five ethical worldviews are: (a) skepticism, (b) cynicism, (c) relativism, (d) materialism, and (e) hierarchicalism. Each of these worldviews will be discussed briefly.

Skepticism

In this ethical worldview there is no objective truth whatsoever, therefore, there are no rights and wrongs – only differences of opinion. Man is the measure of all things. Truth is totally dependent on the individual. The Sophist philosopher Protagoras first expressed this philosophy in the 5^th and 4^th century B.C. (Popkin, 1967), it combined a basic position of explaining the universe in terms of phenomenological aspects (e.g., all I know is what I can see, hear, touch, taste, and smell) with personal experiences and interpretation. In this ethic there are no universals only subjective interpretations. Today we see this ethical position presented in postmodern thinking and writing.

As applied to technological impacts on society, this ethic would propose that any form of explaining positive and negative technological impacts would be acceptable based on a person’s individual perspective. Tolerance of all viewpoints would be a goal of this ethical position. Any judgments stating a collective or general evaluation of a positive or negative impact of technology on society would be deemed inappropriate. For example, as an individual I can declare that the application of automobile technology has a negative impact on me, however, I should not state that it has a negative impact on any other person or group.

Cynicism

In this worldview there are some objective truths and we can know them (e.g., mathematics, physics) but there is no objective truth as it applies to subjective issues in ethics. The cynic philosophy was erratically developed and presented as early as the 4^th century B.C. with its most notable advocate being Diogenes of Sinope (Kidd, 1967). The basic premise of the cynic worldview is that truth is only those things that can be proved through empirical research, and everything else is just subjective interpretation by an individual. In addition, the cynic would deem that any issue that falls outside of empirical analysis is either pure foolishness or simply unworthy of further study.

The cynic worldview of the ethical impacts of technology on society would only be based on scientific experimentation, such as the specific amounts of pollutants coming from automobiles combined with scientific experimentation showing the negative effects of these pollutants on plant and animal life. Individuals applying this ethical position could speak directly to this specific issue but could not connect the same automobile with the social and emotional ramifications of a society that has splintered because of mobility brought on by the wide spread use of automobile transportation. For the cynic, these types of ethical considerations are subjective and cannot be verified as truth because they are not supported by empirical data.

Relativism

Relativism is an ethical worldview where there is objective truth but there is no objective ethic (goodness). No real right and wrong, only individual will or desires (Kreeft, 1996). Moral or ethical relativism became widely accepted in the 1960’s and is often presented as a choice between law and liberty (freedom – personal, sexual, emotional, psychological). The claims of moral relativism include:

1. All moral laws are man made and are only custom or convention – not absolute.

2. There is no objective goodness – all values are relative, subjective, and personal.

3. There are no rights or wrongs – only individual wills, desires, and preferences.

4. Might makes right – e.g., monarchy or democracy.

5. From the relativist perspective, to believe in moral absolutes is to join the unthinking majority who are traditionalists, “stuck-in-the-mud” conservatives, status quo, morally “hung-up,” sexually impoverished yahoos.

6. Moral law is created rather than discovered, making morality more like art than science.

7. The only absolute is that all ethical truth is relative.

Philosophically, relativism can be explained in three different ways, each describing a structure in which this worldview may function within society (Brandt, 1967). In descriptive relativism ethical disagreement follows along cultural lines. The culture is what defines the ethical system; therefore, the ethics within an Arab culture could be radically different from a European culture. According to the worldview of moral relativism one ethic is no better or worse than another.

In metaethical relativism ethical positions are neither true nor false but only express the attitudes of the speaker. Ethics are determined solely by an individual demonstrating or presenting a particular moral viewpoint. Because ethical truth is subjective, one point or position is of equal value with any other point or position.

Normative relativism is where ethical values are based on the majority consensus (law of the land) within a given community, state, or nation. Ethics are based on the rules and regulations of a given government at a given time. Therefore, under this form of moral relativism (at least philosophically), the ethics of Hitler’s Nazi Germany or Pol Pot’s Communist Cambodia were no better or worse than those of Gandi’s India or Bush’s United States of America.

The impacts of moral/ethical relativism on technology can be profound, but will vary depending on which philosophical approach is applied. Based on the organizational structure of a given society (e.g., elected representatives with the rule of law and appropriate checks and balances vs. totalitarian regimes with little or no representation or checks and balances), the effects of an ethical worldview can be moderate to large in scope. End results of this way of thinking may give rise to the rapid expansion of technological systems or the rapid limitations of technological systems, depending on the culture and who is in control of the government. For example, when the Shah of Iran in the 1960s and 1970s decided to modernize his country through the revenues of massive oil exportation, it resulted initially in rapid technological growth both at the national and personal levels. Activities related to modernization and the subsequent affiliations with western cultures were viewed by certain segments within the Iranian society to be inappropriate and contrary to the Muslim religion. When the government of the Shah of Iran was overthrown in 1978 the relativistic worldview changed with regard to technological development, resulting in the rapid decline or limitation of technology. Technological innovations (or at least certain components of technology) were viewed as ethically “bad” or “wrong” based on the ruling authorities within the government.

When applied at the individual level, ethical relativism can take the form of people purchasing and utilizing technology to meet needs and satisfy wants based totally on a personal rationale. For example, an individual may decide to purchase a cellular telephone because they want to be in constant touch with others. The impact of cell phone technology on personal relations would be a debatable point but (and importantly) a moot point because within this worldview there is no such thing as universal “rights or wrongs” or “good or bad.” There are just personal and subjective choices. No advantage would be realized by discussing the ethics of a technology such as cell phones because everyone has their own reasons and perspectives on the use and impact of this technology and each opinion is just as valid as any other.

Materialism

Materialism is the term given to a family of doctrines concerning the nature of the world where matter holds a primary position. Extreme materialism asserts that the real world consists of material things, varying in their states and relations, and nothing else. It is with extreme materialist views that we are here concerned. Thus the cardinal tenet of materialism is, “everything that is, is material – anything that isn’t material, isn’t real” (Campbell, 1967).

A material thing can be defined as being made up of parts possessing many physical properties and no other properties. The physical properties are position in space and time, size, shape, duration, mass, velocity, solidity, inertia, electric charge, spin, rigidity, temperature, hardness and many others (more are being added as we discover new ways to measure things). These things make up the science of physics. In this philosophical worldview the only thing that matters is what can be measured to verify its existence, if it can’t be measured it either doesn’t exist or is not worth exploration. Materialists have traditionally been determinists – there is a cause for every event (and the cause is based on physical sciences).

When applied to ethics this worldview takes on a purely mechanistic form; ethical choices and decisions are the effects of matter relating to other matter, nothing more and nothing less. Personal choices are removed from this worldview and ethic; the only thing that matters is matter. Personal moral responsibility is also removed along with any form of guilt; something that makes this worldview highly attractive to many people.

As applied to the impacts on technology and specifically the teaching of technology, the application of the materialist worldview would focus exclusively on the mechanisms of a given technological topic. For example, instruction and learning would center on the internal operation of technology artifacts (e.g., principles of the internal combustion engine, design of electrical circuitry, design and creation of web sites). The primary goal is to communicate how technology works, how it is applied to perform various functions in business and industry, and what careers are connected with a particular technological system. Issues related to the values of the technology, impacts of the technology in non-technical (non-materialistic) areas, and conceptual or philosophical dimensions would receive little attention or not be considered at all. This approach is common in many technology education programs and in the opinion of this author is indicative of a significant weakness in the study and teaching of technology.

Hierarchicalism – Up to this point, the ethical worldviews discussed have taken positions where there is no specified universal normative ethic, meaning there are no absolutes that govern ethical actions (rights vs. wrongs). A universal normative ethic is one that is prescriptive rather than descriptive. It is an ethic that commands certain courses of action as opposed to describing ethical actions. A normative ethic does not merely describe how people do act; rather, it prescribes how they ought to act. It is not an ethic of “is” but an ethic of the “ought” (Geisler, 1971, p. 21). The universality of the ethic expands its application by postulating that the prescriptive element of the ethic applies to all people in all situations regardless of time, place, and culture. In the ethical worldviews of Skepticism, Cynicism, Relativism and Materialism there are no ethical norms and there are no real ethical universals. In these worldviews, ethical decisions are based on and at the discretion of the individual, purely and simply. The issue of “ought” is not considered as a relevant factor when employing these ethical worldviews.

Hierarchicalism is unique from other worldviews in that it incorporates both ethical norms as well as ethical universals. In the hierarchical ethical worldview there are many universal ethical norms, meaning there are ethical positions that are immutable and complete apart from any interpretation by people. For example, the hierarchical ethical position for truth telling or not committing murder is consistent in every circumstance at every time for every person with a notable exception. The hierarchical position would hold that there are multiple ethical universals but at various times these universals may conflict with each other, where one universal (e.g., preventing murder) impacts on another universal (e.g., telling the truth). When multiple universals come in conflict, the hierarchical ethic would hold that the higher ethic is always accepted as the primary goal or focus of human action. Therefore, life saving is more important and more ethical than truth telling.

When applying this ethical position to technological impacts on society, individuals are charged with evaluating technological systems to consider the long-term as well as the short-term ramifications of these systems. For example, is it “right” to use technology to retrieve and view personal and private information about an individual? The issue of privacy is a huge concern in our modern societies; legislation has been introduced and passed into law at many local, state, and national levels (Annas, Glantz, and Roche, 1995) to limit unauthorized access to personal and private information. If, in a given situation, extremely private information (e.g., genetic codes) about an individual were needed to prevent the death of an unconscious individual (same person), would it be ethical to access these records without permission? According to the ethic of hierarchicalism, the saving of life is a higher ethic that the protection of privacy, therefore it would be ethically justified to access the private information in order to facilitate the saving of a life.

Another case in point of this ethical worldview is the issue of using genetic profiling to validate the “worth” of a pre-born individual. The use of genetic testing of human babies while they are invitro is becoming more commonplace. On one hand, this testing can detect health related problems that can be corrected prior to birth. In other instances test results are used to inform parents about health related problems and associated counseling might suggest the abortion of the baby. In the latter case the ethic of hierarchicalism could be applied and the higher ethic would be the saving of the life of the baby rather than the destruction of life.

Again, the impact of employing this worldview can be profound. As science and technology continue to advance, ethical conflicts will increase in both number and scope. Every individual will be placed in situations where ethical decisions must be made with regard to technology; nobody will escape the philosophical mandates that all of humankind will face in some capacity or other. The only question that remains to be answered is what ethical worldview will be employed to address these situations? Each worldview provides an explanation of how to understand and help solve ethical problems. Technology educators have a responsibility to address these types of issues as part of the overall goal of encouraging technological literacy in the citizens of planet Earth.

Role of Technology Teacher Education in the Teaching of Ethics

During the fall of 1991 a group of recognized experts from the field of technology education met together to identify the essential framework components for the secondary level curriculum in technology education (Wicklein, 1992). The results of this project yielded nine primary curriculum areas that were considered necessary to create a successful instructional program for the middle school and high school technology teacher. As the principal researcher on this project, I found it very interesting that the primary curriculum goal identified by the panel of experts was “developing human potential” (Wicklein, 1992, p. 24). This curriculum goal addressed topics such as, enhancing student’s positive self-image, developing appropriate social skills, encouraging and developing student leadership skills as well as others that had nothing to do with technology per se. The experts in this project defended this goal and the priority that it held in the curriculum framework by explaining that the most important role of any teacher is to help their students develop as responsible humans first and foremost, apart from teaching any particular specific subject matter. With this as a base component in the secondary curriculum for technology education, it is clear that instruction on ethics is needed and appropriate for inclusion at all levels of instruction.

Common practices in technology teacher education do not attend to a detailed study and dialogue on ethical issues. Technology teacher educators often portray an ethical worldview of materialism. When this worldview is applied to the study of technology, and specifically to the teaching of technology, the focus is exclusively on the mechanisms of a given technological topic. Instruction and learning often focus on how technological things work (e.g., building a model rocket, assembling an electrical circuit, creating a video advertisement). The ultimate purpose of this type of instruction is to inform and train students about specific technologies. Thoughtful considerations related to the values of the technology, impacts of the technology on society, and philosophical discussions on the significance of a given technology are often neglected or addresses in a most brief way. Teacher educators of technology education should examine their instructional content to ascertain whether ethical issues associated with technological systems that are covered in their classes are addressed.

A missing component in some technology teacher education curricula is perspective. Perspective, in this case, indicates the need to examine, not just where we are and where we are going with regard to technology, but what ought we think and do about technology. With current curricular approaches in technology education students will emerge with a lopsided view of reality if educators do not address the entire progression of technology; past, present, and future; as well as ethics and morals of technology.

The question of what to include when studying technology or any school subject is often critical for teachers, but according to Neil Postman, author of Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology (1992), this is of little importance. “Perhaps the most important contribution schools can make to the education of our youth is to give them a sense of coherence in their studies, a sense of purpose, meaning, and interconnectedness in what they learn” (Postman, 1992, p. 185-186). Postman continues,

Modern secular education is failing not because it doesn’t teach who Ginger Rogers, Norman Mailer, and a thousand other people are [as well as snap grids on CAD, Flash video downloads, and CNC codes] but because it has no moral, social, or intellectual center. There is no set of ideas or attitudes that permeates all parts of the curriculum. The curriculum is not, in fact, a ‘course of study’ at all but a meaningless hodgepodge of subjects. It does not even put forward a clear vision of what constitutes an educated person, unless it is a person who possesses ‘skills.’ In other words, a technocrat’s ideal – a person with no commitment and no point of view but with plenty of marketable skills. (p. 186)

Therefore, the question remains, what is the role of the technology teacher educator in the instruction of ethics? How does the technology teacher educator go about addressing the impacts of technology on society with ethics in mind? We cannot and should not expect the average classroom teacher of technology to tackle this topic on his or her own. The subject of ethics is a difficult one all by itself but is compounded exponentially when placed within the politically charged climate of the public school arena. Technology teacher educators need to develop model instructional strategies where ethical issues are discussed and demonstrated for pre-service teachers. Positive examples are needed to encourage the next generation of technology teachers to tackle the “prickly pear” of ethical instruction in the classroom. Ethical issues related to the development, use, and/or elimination of technology is important and essential to a comprehensive program of study in technology education. Teacher educators have a unique opportunity to lead the way on this important topic, without our thought and example we cannot assume that this type of instruction will ever be dealt with in an inclusive way. Ethics instruction will be a challenging topic in our field and it can be a great opportunity to expand our horizons to consider all of the ramifications of the impact of technology on society, both here in the U.S. and around the world. The challenge is real – the question is, will we tackle it in a way that would do justice to a study of ethics?

When considering the impact that technology has on society, ethics is a central construct for this topic. It would seem very natural to consider the ethical ramifications of various technological systems if one could move beyond the mere technical features in the study of artifacts. For example, when studying energy systems, educators could easily move class activities and discussions to consider the relevance of alternative energy sources and compare these with more conventional energy production systems. In addition to comparing costs of production and output capabilities, teachers and students could debate the ethics of further development of alternative energy. Issues related to “ought” could and should be brought to the forefront of these types of instruction. Ethical reflection and deliberation should be viewed as not just another add-on feature to the study of technology but as a central and integral part of the core of understanding technology.

Interpreting the Standards for Technological Literacy with Ethics Instruction

Ethical issues have been addressed and interwoven in several of the Standards for Technological Literacy. In particular, standards 4, 5, and 6 speak to ethical concerns that are of great importance to our society. Standard 4 states, “Students will develop an understanding of the cultural, social, economic, and political effects of technology” (International Technology Education Association, 2000, p.57). Within this standard, specific ethical points are posed that are important to consider in the development of the technologically literate person. For example, when discussing the changes brought to society by technological development, this standard presents the following ethical scenario: “Traditional ways of life have been displaced by technological development. This trend tends to magnify the inequalities among peoples and among societies by creating a situation in which a minority of people and groups control and use a majority of the world’s resources” (p. 57).

Teacher educators can incorporate issues related to standard 4 within their teacher preparation programs by providing real-world ethical situations and scenarios that typify this ethical problem. For example, it is a fact that U.S. companies own or control over 50% of the wealth that exists in the world today, and at the same time, the U.S. represents approximately 5% of the total population on Earth (Whaley, 1987). Through this simple statement of distribution of wealth, questions can be posed that challenge students to consider the ethics of this condition. These questions might include the following:

1. Is the distribution of the world’s wealth just?

2. Should it be changed?

3. If so, how might you change it?

4. Have you ever experienced a similar situation where something was distributed so unevenly? What did you do?

5. What role does technology play in distribution of wealth?

When teacher educators integrate ethics instruction within their technology courses, pre-service teachers begin to recognize the need and importance of these types of issues and learn how to incorporate ethical issues within their future classroom instruction.

Several of the standards benchmarks focus specifically on ethics, for example, standard 4, benchmark E states “Technology, by itself, is neither good nor bad, but decisions about the use of products and systems can result in desirable or undesirable consequences” (p. 60). This very statement could be questioned from an ethical perspective, as well as, debated by considering a variety of technologies. Benchmark F of standard 4 speaks specifically about ethics when it states, “The development and use of technology poses ethical issues” (p. 61). Additionally, benchmark J of standard 4 addresses ethical maters by stating “Ethical considerations are important in the development, selection, and use of technologies” (p. 63). Other benchmarks, although not mentioning ethics within their description, bring into focus ethical dilemmas that are of great importance as students grow in their technological literacy. Benchmark K of standard 4 states, “The transfer of a technology from one society to another can cause cultural, social, economic, and political changes affecting both societies to varying degrees” (p. 63).

As students consider how technology transfer impacts people they should be encouraged to consider ethical problems that are brought to bear in these circumstances. For example, when Intel Corporation decided to move one of its microchip production facilities to San Jose, Costa Rica they probably based the bulk of their decision on economic reasons (e.g., the cost of labor in Costa Rica is much lower than in the U.S.). However, another important issue also needed to be considered; that is, what would be the social and cultural impact of building and running a production plant in Costa Rica? Is it ethical to disrupt the social and cultural structure of this country by tempting people to abandon their traditional social and cultural structure to take advantage of the jobs created by Intel? This is what benchmark K of standard 4 is alluding to.

Standard 5, “Students will develop an understanding of the effects of technology on the environment”(p. 65) and Standard 6, “Students will develop an understanding of the role of society in the development and use of technology” (p. 73) both highlight topics where ethics is of special concern and interest. Teacher educators can easily identify examples within each of these two standards where ethical questions surface and provide important teaching/learning moments. For example, within standard 5 on understanding the effects of technology on the environment, ethical discussions and questions can be presented to address the concept of recycling. Are the current technological practices that support recycling of materials providing a positive environmental result or are many of the current recycling processes merely a form of downcycling, which have more of a negative impact on the environment than the processing of virgin materials? According to international environmental architects McDonough and Braungart, (2002) the current recycling practices often actually cause more environmental degradation and biosphere contamination. Debating the impacts and values of recycling would be a powerful learning experience as technology teachers and students reflect on the ethical ramifications of this practice that is typically assumed to be friendly to the environment.

Likewise, when addressing standard 6 on understanding the role of society in the development and use of technology, students can examine ethical factors that lead societies to adopt or not adopt specific technological systems and processes. For example, students can carefully evaluate the rationale that certain groups of people have given for not using and adopting advanced technological systems (e.g., Amish communities in Pennsylvania). Through a careful and fair analysis of the reasons why these people do not adopt advanced technologies, students can begin to understand that the ethics within a society can impact technology and vice versa.

In several of the Standards for Technological Literacy, ethics is interwoven as an integral component in the development, use, and impact that technology has on individuals, society, and culture. Technology teacher educators must include ethics discussion and instruction within their teacher preparation programs in order to provide a complete perspective in the study of technology. If ethics instruction is not included in teacher preparation, the future of technology education will be anemic and short sighted in the preparation of a technologically literate citizenry.

Instructional Activity

Description

A classical debate is a way to address the issues of ethics and the assessment of technological impacts on society. As an instructional activity students are required to consider the ethics of a variety of technological topics all of which have impacts on society. The following lesson plan describes this assignment in the format that can be used in any technology education program.

Assignment

Write two essays (one per day). Read the following questions and form an opinion about the issue. Write a five-paragraph essay about your opinion. Be sure that your essay reflects a specific opinion and does not explain both the pros and the cons of the issue. You should write why you agree or disagree with the statement, but not both. Each day you will turn in one essay. Vary your topics; do not choose more than one topic from each area.

The essays must be completed by the end of the week. If you are not in class for one reason or another, you must complete this assignment at home. We will be discussing the responses next week and our next unit will center on your answers.

Remember… there are no wrong opinions if you can justify your reasons!

Debate Topics

Bio-Technology

1. Should animals be used for medical research?

2. Should embryos be cloned?

3. Should euthanasia (mercy killing) be legal?

4. Should prescription drugs be sold on the internet?

Communication

1. Should students be allowed to carry cell phones to school?

2. Should the development of webpages be monitored to restrict information available on the internet?

3. Should there be regulations concerning the use of cell phones in automobiles?

4. Energy, Power, & Transportation

5. Should personal transportation laws (seatbelts, helmet, etc.) be required by law or a personal choice?

6. Should parents be able to revoke a teenager’s driver’s license?

7. Should gas prices be regulated?

8. Is too much money spent on space exploration?

Production

1. Should the US change to the metric system?

2. Should children under the age of 16 be allowed to work in factories?

3. Should road construction be limited to nighttime in high traffic areas?

Requirements

Your five-paragraph essays will consist of:

· An introductory paragraph

· 3 body paragraphs, each explaining a different reason for your opinion

· A conclusion paragraph

· Each paragraph must consist of a minimum of three sentences.

Evaluation

Each essay will be graded using the following grading scale:

· Are there 5 paragraphs with at least 3 sentences each?
30 points

· Does the introductory paragraph provide an overview of the topic and state your opinion?
10 points

· Do the three body paragraphs provide three different reasons to support your opinion?
45 points

· Does the conclusion paragraph summarize your reasons for your opinion?
10 points

· Is the paper free of grammatical and spelling errors?
5 points

Following the essay assignment, debate topics are selected from the highest rated essay assignments. The class is then divided into groups of two or three students, where one group of two or three students will debate a technological topic with another group of two or three students. The following debate procedures are used to guide the process and teach students the classical method of debating.

Ethics Debate Procedure

Opening statement by affirmative (2 minutes maximum time)

Opening statement by opposition (2 minutes maximum time)

Argument by affirmative (6-10 minutes)

Cross examination of affirmative (5 minutes maximum)

Argument by opposition (6-10 minutes)

Cross examination of opposition (5 minutes maximum)

Closing statement by opposition (2 minutes maximum)

Closing statement by affirmative (2 minutes maximum)

Materials Developed

The debate unit should require each student group to develop a number of documents and records that support their position on the topic being debated. The group should use these documents and records during the debating process. The required debating documentation includes:

Cover Page

· Title

· Names of group members

· Class period

· Date

Debate graphic

Opening Statement

Must be typed

Must be read, taking no more than 1 minute in length

Power Point Presentation

· Minimum of 15 slides

· Must use pictures and graphics, not from clip art

· Must be 6-10 minutes in length

· Printed in note format, 6 per page

Outline of Presentation

Typed

Directly follow the presentation

Summary of Topic

May be used when delivering presentation

1-2 pages in length

Questions

· 10 questions that could be used on opposing position

· 10 questions that may be asked of your position

References

Minimum of 5 resources

Follow APA format style

Binding

All documents and records should be bond

Bound document should be aesthetically pleasing and neat

Following the completion of these materials, the debates can begin with students following all procedures.

Debate Evaluations

Evaluation will be part of the debating process. A detailed evaluation should be conducted to provide students with feedback for self-improvement. In this case a combination of peer evaluations and instructor evaluation is helpful for individual students to gain confidence in communicating ideas and concepts. By providing and averaged score of all class peers (those students in the class observing the two debate teams) with the instructor’s evaluation, the student debaters can learn ways to improve their research and communication skills. The following debate matrix can be utilized to evaluate the debating process.

Ethics Debate Evaluation Matrix:

Topic: ___________________________________________________________

Group members ___________________________________________________________

Materials Turned In

Cover Page	5
Include topic?	1
Include members’ names	1
Include a graphic?	1
Creative	2

Opening Statement	5
Typed?	1
10-12 point font?	1
Proper length?	1
Quality	2

Power Point	15
Printed 9 slides per page?	2
At least 15 slides?	4
Relevant researched material?	5
Appropriate pictures/graphics?	4

Summary	10
Typed?	2
10-12 point font?	2
1-2 pages long?	2
Adequately summarizes information?	4

Questions	5
Typed? 10-12 point font?	1
Questions to be asked?	2
Questions to ask?	2

Closing Statement	5
Typed?	1
10-12 point font?	1
Proper length?	1
Quality	2

Resources	5
Typed? 10-12 point?	1
At least 2? Quality of sources?	2
MLA Style formatting?	2

Actual Debate

Opening Statement	10
At least 1 minute?	2
Quality of information	4
Quality of presentation	4

Presentation	20
6-10 minutes in length	5
Follow script?	5
Quality of information	5
Quality of presentation	5

Cross Exam - asking	5
Use at least 10 questions?	2
All group members participate?	1
Based on group presentation?	2

Cross Exam - answering	5
Adequately answer all questions?	4
All group members participate?	1

Closing Statement	10
Adequately summarize the topic?	8
Is it presented professionally?	2

Bonus	10
Are all group members dressed professionally?	10

Debate Grade

100

Comments