Advertisement

Reflective Consensus Building on Wicked Problems with the Reflect! Platform

  • Michael H. G. HoffmannEmail author
Original Research/Scholarship

Abstract

Wicked problems—that is, problems that can be framed in a number of different ways, depending on who is looking at them—pose ethical challenges for professionals that have scarcely been recognized as such. Even though wicked problems are all around us, they are rarely addressed in education. A reason for this failure might be that wicked problems pose almost insurmountable challenges in educational settings. This contribution shows how students can learn to cope with wicked problems in problem-based learning projects that are structured by the Reflect! platform.

Keywords

Computer-supported learning Consensus Ethics education Problem-based learning Reflective consensus building Wicked problems 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research and the development of the Reflect! platform has been supported by three grants: a larger one from the National Science Foundation (Cyberlearning and Future Learning Technologies, Award 1623419) and two smaller ones from the Digital Integrative Liberal Arts Center (DILAC) in the Ivan Alan College of Liberal Arts at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. I am thankful for feedback that Jan Albert van Laar, Bryan Norton, Justin Biddle, Rafael Meza, Anne Zacharias-Walsh, Matt Cox, Daniel Sanbeg, Majid Ahmadi, and Daniel S. Schiff provided. Thanks also to Richard Catrambone and Jeremy Lingle (Co-PIs on the NSF project); Scott Robertson and Jeffrey Wilson from Georgia Tech’s Interactive Media Technology Center (IMTC) who created the platform; and the members of the VIP team Digital Deliberation who, in changing constellations, contributed substantially to its creation: Chris LeDantec, Ben Staver, DeAnna Brown, Philip Abel, Joshua Dwire, John Golden, Michelle Chiu, TJ Eneh, Sruti Guhathakurta, Shourya Khare, Sanskriti Rathi, Sally Hannoush, Minju Kwon, Savannah Quinn, Kexin Zhang, Phuc Huynh, Richard Aaron Jeng, Divya Yagnamurthy, Gauranshu Sharma, Sofia Davalos, Nia Alston Hall, Anamica Menon, Mary Alsayar, Angelina Suwoto, Theresa Hsieh, Kishan Chudasama, and Ermelinda Izihirwe.

References

  1. Baguley, M., Danaher, P. A., Davies, A., De George-Walker, L., Jones, J. K., Matthews, K. J., et al. (2014). The transformative potential of educational learning and development. In M. Baguley, P. A. Danaher, A. Davies, L. De George-Walker, J. K. Jones, K. J. Matthews, et al. (Eds.), Educational learning and development: Building and enhancing capacity (pp. 124–135). London: Palgrave Pivot.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrows, H. S. (1992 <1988>). The tutorial process (2nd ed.). Springfield, IL: Southern Illinois University School of Medicine.Google Scholar
  3. Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. Springfield, IL: Problem-Based Learning Institute.Google Scholar
  4. Berry, R. M. (2007). The ethics of genetic engineering (Routledge annals of bioethics). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Berry, R. M., Borenstein, J., & Butera, R. (2013). Contentious problems in bioscience and biotechnology: A pilot study of an approach to ethics education. Science and Engineering Ethics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-012-9359-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berry, R. M., Levine, A. D., Kirkman, R., Blake, L., & Drake, M. (2015). Navigating bioethical waters: Two pilot projects in problem-based learning for future bioscience and biotechnology professionals. Science and Engineering Ethics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9725-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borenstein, J., & Pearson, Y. (2012). Robot caregivers: Ethical issues across the human lifespan. In P. Lin, K. Abney, & G. A. Bekey (Eds.), Robot ethics: The ethical and social implications of robotics (pp. 251–265). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Churchman, C. W. (1967). Guest editorial: Wicked problems. Management Science, 14(4), 141–142.  https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.14.4.B141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator, 15(3), 6–11, 38–39.Google Scholar
  11. Conklin, J. (2006). Dialogue mapping: Building shared understanding of wicked problems. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Crowley, S., Gonnerman, C., & O’Rourke, M. (2016). Cross-disciplinary research as a platform for philosophical research. Journal of the American Philosophical Association, 2(2), 344–363.  https://doi.org/10.1017/apa.2016.16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179–201.  https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068002179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dillenbourg, P. (2015). Orchestration graphs. Modeling scalable education (1st ed.). Lausanne: EPFL Press.Google Scholar
  15. Eigenbrode, S. D., O’Rourke, M., Wulfhorst, J. D., Althoff, D. M., Goldberg, C. S., Merrill, K., et al. (2007). Employing philosophical dialogue in collaborative science. BioScience, 57(1), 55–64.  https://doi.org/10.1641/b570109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management (Pitman series in business and public policy). A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
  17. Gijlers, H., & de Jong, T. (2009). Sharing and confronting propositions in collaborative inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 27(3), 239–268.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000903014352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hall, T. E., Piso, Z., Engebretson, J., & O’Rourke, M. (2018). Evaluating a dialogue-based approach to teaching about values and policy in graduate transdisciplinary environmental science programs. PLoS ONE, 13(9), e0202948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cognition and Instruction, 26(1), 48–94.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000701798495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoffmann, M. H. G. (2011a). Analyzing framing processes in conflicts and communication by means of logical argument mapping. In W. A. Donohue, R. G. Rogan, & S. Kaufman (Eds.), Framing matters: Perspectives on negotiation research and practice in communication (pp. 136–164). New York, NY: Peter Lang. pre-print available at http://works.bepress.com/michael_hoffmann/37/.Google Scholar
  21. Hoffmann, M. H. G. (2011b). “Theoric Transformations” and a new classification of abductive inferences. Transactions of the Charles S Peirce Society, 46(4), 570–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hoffmann, M. H. G. (2018). Stimulating reflection and self-correcting reasoning through argument mapping: Three approaches (First online 2016). Topoi. An International Review of Philosophy, 37(1), 185–199.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-016-9408-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hoffmann, M. H. G. (2019). Consensus building and its epistemic conditions. Topoi.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-019-09640-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hoffmann, M. H. G., & Lingle, J. A. (2015). Facilitating problem-based learning by means of collaborative argument visualization software. Teaching Philosophy, 38(4), 371–398.  https://doi.org/10.5840/teachphil2015112039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hughes, J., Jewson, N., & Unwin, L. (2007). Communities of practice: Critical perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Jordan, M. E., Kleinsasser, R. C., & Roe, M. F. (2014). Wicked problems: Inescapable wickedity. Journal of Education for Teaching, 40(4), 415–430.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2014.929381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Keestra, M. (2018). Overcoming a paradox? Preparing students for transdisciplinary environments. Integration and implementation insights. Research resources for understanding and acting on complex real-world problems. https://i2insights.org/2018/01/30/preparing-transdisciplinary-students/.
  28. Kirkman, R., Fu, K., & Lee, B. (2017). Teaching ethics as design. Advances in Engineering Education, 6(2), 1–17.Google Scholar
  29. Kirschner, P. A., Buckingham Shum, S. J., & Carr, C. S. (Eds.). (2003). Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lave, J. (1993). The practice of learning. In J. Lave & S. Chaiklin (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lynch, C. F., Ashley, K. D., Pinkwart, N., & Aleven, V. (2009). Concepts, structures, and goals: redefining ill-definedness. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 19(3), 253–266.Google Scholar
  33. Newstetter, W. C. (2005). Designing cognitive apprenticeships for biomedical engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(2), 207–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Newstetter, W. C. (2006). Fostering integrative problem solving in biomedical engineering: The PBL approach. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 34(2), 217–225.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-005-9034-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Norris, P. E., O’Rourke, M., Mayer, A. S., & Halvorsen, K. E. (2016). Managing the wicked problem of transdisciplinary team formation in socio-ecological systems. Landscape and Urban Planning, 154, 115–122.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.01.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Norton, B. G. (2012). The ways of wickedness: Analyzing messiness with messy tools. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25(4), 447–465.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-011-9333-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Norton, B. G. (2015). Sustainable values, sustainable change A guide to environmental decision making. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Okada, A., Buckingham Shum, S., & Sherborne, T. (Eds.). (2014). Knowledge cartography. Software tools and mapping techniques (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  39. O’Rourke, M., & Crowley, S. J. (2013). Philosophical intervention and cross-disciplinary science: The story of the Toolbox Project. Synthese, 190(11), 1937–1954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. O’Rourke, M., Crowley, S., Eigenbrode, S. D., & Wulfhors, J. D. (Eds.). (2014). Enhancing communication and collaboration in interdisciplinary research. Los Angeles: SAGE.Google Scholar
  41. Parker, K. A. (2012). Ecohumanities pedagogy: An experiment in environmental education through radical service-learning. Contemporary Pragmatism, 9(1), 223–251.  https://doi.org/10.1163/18758185-90000224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ramaley, J. A. (2014). The changing role of higher education: Learning to deal with wicked problems. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 18(3), 7–22.Google Scholar
  43. Ritchey, T. (2011). Wicked problems—Social messes: Decision support modelling with morphological analysis (Risk, governance and society) (Vol. 17). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rittel, H. W. J., & Noble, D. (1989). Issue-based information systems for design. In University of California at Berkeley working paper, 492.Google Scholar
  45. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roberts, N. (2000). Wicked problems and network approaches to resolution. International Public Management Review, 1(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
  47. Rogoff, B. (1989). Apprenticeship in thinking—Cognitive development in social context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., & McLaren, B. M. (2010). Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(1), 43–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schneider, J., Groza, T., & Passant, A. (2013). A review of argumentation for the social semantic web. Semantic Web, 4(2), 159–218.  https://doi.org/10.3233/sw-2012-0073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: BasicBooks.Google Scholar
  51. Seager, T., Selinger, E., & Wiek, A. (2012). Sustainable engineering science for resolving wicked problems. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25(4), 467–484.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-011-9342-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. van de Poel, I., & Royakkers, L. R. (2011). Ethics, technology, and engineering: An introduction. Malden, MA: Wiley.Google Scholar
  53. van der Burg, S., & van de Poel, I. (2005). Teaching ethics and technology with Agora, an electronic tool. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11(2), 277–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. van Laar, J. A. (2019). Middle ground: Settling a public controversy by means of a reasonable compromise. In J. A. Blair (Ed.), Studies in critical thinking (pp. 69–80). Windsor: Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation and Rhetoric.Google Scholar
  55. Walsh, A. (2005). The tutor in problem-based learning: A Novice’s guide. Hamilton, ON: Program for Faculty Development, McMaster University.Google Scholar
  56. Wegrich, K., & Stimac, V. (2014). Coordination capacity. In M. Lodge & K. Wegrich (Eds.), The problem-solving capacity of the modern state: Governance challenges and administrative capacities (First (1st ed., pp. 41–62). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public PolicyGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations