Understanding Students' Ethical Reasoning and Fallacies through Asynchronous Online Discussion: Lessons for Teaching Evaluation Ethics

Autor/inn/en	Hedayati-Mehdiabadi, Amir; Huang, Wenhao David; Oh, Eunjung Grace
Titel	Understanding Students' Ethical Reasoning and Fallacies through Asynchronous Online Discussion: Lessons for Teaching Evaluation Ethics
Quelle	In: Journal of Moral Education, 49 (2020) 4, S.454-475 (22 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0305-7240
DOI	10.1080/03057240.2019.1662774
Schlagwörter	Ethics; Teaching Methods; Graduate Students; Online Courses; Program Evaluation; Misconceptions; Moral Values; Decision Making; Political Attitudes; Persuasive Discourse; Vignettes; Evaluators; Evaluation Methods; Computer Mediated Communication; Cooperative Learning; Case Studies + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Ethik; Teaching method; Lehrmethode; Unterrichtsmethode; Graduate Study; Student; Students; Aufbaustudium; Graduiertenstudium; Hauptstudium; Studentin; Online course; Online-Kurs; Programme evaluation; Programmevaluation; Missverständnis; Moral value; Ethischer Wert; Decision-making; Entscheidungsfindung; Political attitude; Politische Einstellung; Persuasion; Persuasive Kommunikation; Computerkonferenz; Kooperatives Lernen; Case study; Fallstudie; Case Study
Abstract	Evaluations are practiced in political contexts, posing ethical dilemmas to evaluators. It is important, therefore, to prepare evaluation students for ethical decision-making in their future evaluative work. This study explores the use of scenario-based moral reasoning and ethical argumentation as an instructional strategy for teaching evaluation ethics to a group of graduate students enrolled in an online course on program evaluation. The participating students were asked to discuss an ethical scenario in an asynchronous online format during five consecutive weeks. The results suggested that participation in this assignment benefited students in three main ways: (1) providing new insights and adding new perspectives, (2) recognition of and discussion on dichotomies, and (3) attending to one's own and others' unwarranted assumptions. Furthermore, we identified some of the students' ethical misconceptions regarding evaluation and were able to relate these misconceptions to Bandura's theory of moral disengagement and Sartre's notion of "self-deception" or "bad faith." Implications for teaching evaluation ethics and suggestions for future research will be presented and discussed. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01