Engineering process safety research instrument: Assessing students’ moral reasoning in process safety contexts

IF 3.5 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Jeffrey Stransky , Cheryl Bodnar , Landon Bassett , Matthew Cooper , Daniel Anastasio , Daniel Burkey
{"title":"Engineering process safety research instrument: Assessing students’ moral reasoning in process safety contexts","authors":"Jeffrey Stransky ,&nbsp;Cheryl Bodnar ,&nbsp;Landon Bassett ,&nbsp;Matthew Cooper ,&nbsp;Daniel Anastasio ,&nbsp;Daniel Burkey","doi":"10.1016/j.ece.2022.11.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>Process safety decision making is a key component of undergraduate chemical engineering<span> education. Despite this, there are no existing survey instruments designed to measure students’ moral reasoning in the context of process safety decision making. The Engineering Process Safety Research Instrument (EPSRI) was developed to address this deficit in process safety assessment. The EPSRI was modeled after existing moral reasoning instruments including the DIT2, EERI, and ESIT. The process safety scenarios included were drawn from personal experience and reports from the Chemical Safety Board. Each scenario in the instrument was followed by a decision prompt and 12–15 considerations. The EPSRI went through content validation with chemical engineering industry practitioners and chemical engineering faculty members. Subsequently, three rounds of exploratory factor analysis were conducted to finalize the instrument design before a final </span></span>confirmatory factor analysis<span> was completed to ensure validity and reliability of the instrument. Completion of the exploratory factor analysis resulted in five dilemmas with 9–12 considerations each that loaded onto pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional reasoning constructs according to Kohlberg’s moral development theory. Confirmatory factor analysis reaffirmed the validity and reliability of the instrument and its ability to measure chemical engineering students’ moral reasoning within process safety contexts.</span></p></div>","PeriodicalId":48509,"journal":{"name":"Education for Chemical Engineers","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Education for Chemical Engineers","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1749772822000306","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Process safety decision making is a key component of undergraduate chemical engineering education. Despite this, there are no existing survey instruments designed to measure students’ moral reasoning in the context of process safety decision making. The Engineering Process Safety Research Instrument (EPSRI) was developed to address this deficit in process safety assessment. The EPSRI was modeled after existing moral reasoning instruments including the DIT2, EERI, and ESIT. The process safety scenarios included were drawn from personal experience and reports from the Chemical Safety Board. Each scenario in the instrument was followed by a decision prompt and 12–15 considerations. The EPSRI went through content validation with chemical engineering industry practitioners and chemical engineering faculty members. Subsequently, three rounds of exploratory factor analysis were conducted to finalize the instrument design before a final confirmatory factor analysis was completed to ensure validity and reliability of the instrument. Completion of the exploratory factor analysis resulted in five dilemmas with 9–12 considerations each that loaded onto pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional reasoning constructs according to Kohlberg’s moral development theory. Confirmatory factor analysis reaffirmed the validity and reliability of the instrument and its ability to measure chemical engineering students’ moral reasoning within process safety contexts.

工程过程安全研究工具:在过程安全背景下评估学生的道德推理
过程安全决策是化工本科教育的重要组成部分。尽管如此,没有现有的调查工具,旨在衡量学生在过程安全决策的背景下的道德推理。工程过程安全研究仪器(EPSRI)是为了解决过程安全评估中的这一缺陷而开发的。EPSRI是在现有的道德推理工具(包括DIT2、EERI和ESIT)的基础上建模的。所包括的过程安全情景是根据个人经验和化学品安全委员会的报告得出的。文书中的每个情景之后都有一个决定提示和12-15个考虑因素。EPSRI通过了化学工程行业从业者和化学工程教员的内容验证。随后进行三轮探索性因子分析,最终确定仪器设计,最后进行验证性因子分析,确保仪器的效度和信度。根据Kohlberg的道德发展理论,探索性因素分析的完成导致了五个困境,每个困境有9-12个考虑因素,分别加载到前传统、传统和后传统的推理结构中。验证性因子分析重申了该仪器的有效性和可靠性,以及它在过程安全背景下测量化学工程学生道德推理的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.80
自引率
17.90%
发文量
30
审稿时长
31 days
期刊介绍: Education for Chemical Engineers was launched in 2006 with a remit to publisheducation research papers, resource reviews and teaching and learning notes. ECE is targeted at chemical engineering academics and educators, discussing the ongoingchanges and development in chemical engineering education. This international title publishes papers from around the world, creating a global network of chemical engineering academics. Papers demonstrating how educational research results can be applied to chemical engineering education are particularly welcome, as are the accounts of research work that brings new perspectives to established principles, highlighting unsolved problems or indicating direction for future research relevant to chemical engineering education. Core topic areas: -Assessment- Accreditation- Curriculum development and transformation- Design- Diversity- Distance education-- E-learning Entrepreneurship programs- Industry-academic linkages- Benchmarking- Lifelong learning- Multidisciplinary programs- Outreach from kindergarten to high school programs- Student recruitment and retention and transition programs- New technology- Problem-based learning- Social responsibility and professionalism- Teamwork- Web-based learning
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信