Enhancing the Human Potential, MATCHETT

These materials provide an overview of EthAssist -- an online teaching and learning tool designed to help users (1) identify the ethical dimension of their choices and (2) deliberate more effectively about how to resolve ethical conflicts. The session will be a live demonstration of the tool.

1. 

Presentation materials for:

Eth-Assist: A Tool for Ethics Teaching and Learning Online

Presented as part of the panel on Enhancing the Human Potential:
Innovative Tools for Teaching in the Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences
Western Consortium for Educational Technology (WCET) 21st Annual Conference

Presenter contact info: Nancy J. Matchett, PhD
Director, Institute of Professional Ethics
Assistant Professor of Philosophy
University of Northern Colorado
Greeley, CO 80639
nancy.matchett@unco; 970-351-1567


Abstract: EthAssist is an online teaching and learning tool designed to help users (1)
identify the ethical dimension of their choices and (2) deliberate more effectively about
how to resolve ethical conflicts. It is informed by ethical theory, but rather than teaching
the theory didactically the tool engages users in the process of applying theoretical
insights to concrete issues. This session is designed to provide participants with a
hands-on demonstration and discuss ways the tool can be used to facilitate ethical
inquiry about any subject and within any discipline.

EthAssist is still under development, but the prototype is the guided deliberation process
of the online Center for Ethical Deliberation. The pages below contain screen-shots
from the existing guided deliberation process along with notes about how it is being
improved and transformed into EthAssist.

Please note
• The online Center for Ethical Deliberation (CED) is currently hosted at
http://www.mcb.unco.edu/ced/index.cfm, though it is undergoing a design overhaul
and will move at some point in the next 6 months.
• The CED is a project of the University of Northern Colorado’s Institute of
Professional Ethics. More information about how the CED can be incorporated into
ethics teaching and learning can be found here:
http://www.unco.edu/ethics/our_activities.html#B
• The “three frameworks” approach to ethical deliberation has also served as the basis
for the online Responsible Conduct of Research training modules found here:
http://www.democmesite.cme.uab.edu/ORI/Case_Study/default.html and here:
http://www.uab.edu/graduate/rcr/index.html

The Institute of Professional Ethics is always looking for collaborators. If you are
interested in helping to develop additional content for the CED website, or if you would
like more information about how to incorporate the EthAssist tool in your own teaching
or professional development work, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

2. 

THREE ETHICAL FRAMEWORKS
(The central architecture of the Eth-Assist Tool)

CONSEQUENCES DUTIES VIRTUES
Each framework
focuses on a central
question →

which guides
deliberation through
all three stages
↓
What kind of outcomes
should I produce (or try
to produce)?
What are my
obligations in this
situation, and what
are the things I
should never do?
What kind of person
should I be, and
what will my actions
show about my
character?
Perception: specific
features to which
attention is primarily
directed
Directs attention to the
future effects of all
possible courses of
action, for all people
who will be directly or
indirectly affected by
the action.
Always keeps an
eye on the duties
that exist prior to
the current situation
and determine
peopleʼs
obligations within
the situation.
Attempts to discern
character traits
(virtues and vices)
that are, or could be,
motivating the
people involved in
the current situation.
Judgment:
conception of value
used to anchor ethical
judgments
Ethical conduct is
whatever will likely
achieve the best
consequences (a
consequentialist thinker
needs to explain why
certain outcomes are
especially desirable or
important to produce).

Ethical conduct
involves acting on
established moral
principles or rules
(a duty thinker
needs to explain
why certain
principles or rules
are obligatory).
Ethical conduct is
whatever a fully
virtuous person
would do in the
circumstances (a
virtue thinker needs
to explain why
specific character
traits are important
for human beings to
develop).
S
T
A
G
E
S

O
F

E
T
H
I
C
A
L

D
E
L
I
B
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
Motivation: reasons
for living an ethical life
Aim is to produce the
most good in the world.
Everyone benefits,
including the self.
Aim is to live up to
oneʼs obligations –
obeying constraints
on behavior that all
people have good
reason to accept
Aim is to develop
truly excellent
character, making
the most of oneʼs
individual nature in a
wider social context.



3. 



Overview
of
the
EthAssist
Tool



EthAssist
will
guide
users
through
four
stages
of
ethical
deliberation.
While
novice
users
are

encouraged
to
go
through
all
stages
in
order,
any
user
will
have
the
option
to
visit
single
stages

in
isolation.
The
tool
can
be
used
to
analyze
an
already
existing
resolution
to
a
theoretical
or

practical
issue,
or
to
deliberate
about
issues
users
wish
to
resolve
on
their
own.
(Note:
Screen

shots
are
taken
from
the
existing
Guided
Deliberation
Process,
which
serves
as
a
prototype
but

will
be
completely
replaced
by
EthAssist)



STAGE
1
–
Describing
the
Situation:
users
describe
their
present
concern
and
are
given
the

opportunity
to
tailor
the
site
resources
to
their
specific
interests
or
needs.




Subsequent
steps
within
the
re‐designed
version
of
this
stage
will
include:

 Advice
on
how
to
select
the
most
appropriate
framework
given
the
user’s
stated

interests
and
concerns.


 The
ability
to
review
and
draw
from
any
existing
site
content
on
a
particular
topic
(e.g.

‘Aristotle’
or
‘whistle‐blowing’
or
‘integrity’).

 The
ability
to
select
issue‐specific,
discipline‐specific,
or
profession‐specific
modules
as

they
become
available
(e.g.,
“ethics
in
Public
Relations).

Such
modules
will
cause

subsequent
stages
to
be
focused
on
appropriate
subsets
of
site
content.


Any
text

inside

boxes
is

added
by

users.


4. 

 The
option
to
provide
demographic
data
that
may
be
of
interest
to
scholars
relying
on

data
from
the
site.

STAGE
2
–
Honing
Perception:
users
are
prompted
to
identify
additional
features
of
the

situation
that
are
ethically
significant,
but
which
the
user
may
not
have
noticed.








Prompts
during
this
stage
vary
depending
on
the
ethical
framework
and/or
module
selected
in

Stage
1.

 The
Consequences
Framework
(shown
in
the
sample
above)
focuses
user
attention
on
the

likely
outcomes
of
the
various
courses
of
action
available
in
the
situation.

 The
Duties
Framework
focuses
attention
on
the
obligations
that
are
likely
to
exist
in
the

situation.

 The
Virtues
Framework
focuses
attention
on
the
character
traits
that
are
likely
to
motivate

people
in
the
situation.



Subsequent
prompts
during
Stage
(2)
give
users
the
opportunity
to
reflect
on
and
add
detail
to

their
previous
inputs
(see
the
screen
shot
on
the
next
page
for
a
sample).



N.B.:
user
text

entered
in
boxes

here
becomes
fixed

text
for
further

reflection
in
sub‐
sequent
stages
(see

next
page).
This

occurs
throughout

the
process.


5. 







Additional
Detail
of
Stage
2

































Bold
face
text
shown
here

created
from
the
user’s

own
previous
inputs.

Additional
text
input
here

becomes
fixed
text
in

subsequent
steps/stages.

Links
enable
users
to
see
how
others

have
completed
this
stage
and
access

other
site
content.

Clicking
the
Proceed
button

takes
user
to
the
next
step

within
the
currently

selected
framework.

The
Deliberation
Map
enables
users
to

customize
their
own
path
through
the

site
(moving
between
frameworks

and/or
skipping
stages
as
appropriate).

New
links
will
facilitate

informal,
social‐networking

as
well
as
coaching
by

dedicated
teacher/trainers.


6. 





STAGE
3
‐
Clarifying
Judgment:
users
are
prompted
to
identify
the
specific
values,
principles
or

ideals
that
anchor
their
final
judgments
(or
ground
the
analysis
found
in
another
text).








This
stage
encourages
users
to
review
a
variety
of
ethical
perspectives.
The
architecture
of
the

site
treats
each
perspective
is
as
a
specific
way
of
looking
through
one
or
more
of
the
three

frameworks.

 Each
perspective
articulates
and
defends
a
specific
(set
of)
ethical
value(s),
principle(s)
or

ideal(s).

 As
scholars
to
analyze
existing
works
use
the
site,
additional
perspectives
will
become

available
for
other
users
to
review
and
consider
(required
database
modifications).

 Perspectives
that
simply
cannot
be
made
to
fit
within
any
of
the
three
frameworks
will
be

tagged
as
outliers
(another
database
modification).
Scholars
can
access
this
database
to

open
up
new
lines
of
inquiry
into
how
theoretical
constructs
relate
to
the
ethical
life.

 Again,
subsequent
steps
within
this
stage
give
users
the
opportunity
to
reflect
further
on

any
content
they
input
to
the
site.



Hyperlinks

encourage
users
to

review
content

elsewhere
on
the

CED
website.
(Detail

of
the
“Perspectives”

area
is
provided
on

the
last
page
of
this

attachment.)


7. 







STAGE
4
‐
Cultivating
Motivation:
users
are
prompted
to
consider
whether
they
will
in
fact
do

the
action
they
have
judged
to
be
ethically
appropriate,
and
more
broadly,
to
reflect
on
the

nature
and
scope
of
the
human
desire
to
life
ethically.




Subsequent
steps
within
this
will
stage
enable
the
user
to:

 Identify
the
main
obstacles
to
ethical
motivation,
along
with
strategies
to
overcome
them.

 Reflect
on
the
question,
“Why
be
ethical?”


 Search
the
database
for
techniques
and
suggestions
provided
by
other
users
and/or
based

on
specific
scholarly
perspectives.



Finally,
the
option
to
“submit
for
analysis”
will
be
completely
revised
to
enable
users
to
request

feedback
from
and/or
provide
feedback
to
other
users.

 The
submission
link
will
be
separated
from
the
deliberation
map
since
it
is
largely

independent
of
the
deliberative
structure
built
into
the
site
architecture.

 Search
functions
will
enable
users
to
browse
the
most
recent
submissions
or
to
review

submissions
based
on
specific
criteria
(framework,
module,
user
demographic,
etc.).



User
response
determines

subsequent
prompts.
N.B.:

here
and
elsewhere,
text

will
be
revised
to
be
more

compatible
with
scholarly

analysis
as
well
as
novice

deliberation.


8. 



Sample
of
additional
CED
website
content:
EthAssist
will
interact
with
this
content
in
two
ways

1) Links
within
the
EthAssist
tool
encourage
users
(especially
novices)
to
review
and
reflect
on

various
responses
to
the
broad
ethical
question
of
how
one
should
live.

2) Scholars
who
use
the
site
to
analyze
important
texts
will
be
encouraged
to
post
their
results

additional
perspectives,
issue
analyses,
etc.
















Each
link
allows

the
user
to

access
deeper

layers
of
the
site

content.
Page

layouts
provide
a

visual
represen‐
tation
of
key

conceptual

relationships.

Sample
of
additional
detail
found
under

perspective
links.

Deepest
links
will
go
to
open

source
full
text
scholarly
works

(whenever
possible).