1
AIR MODEL
A TEACHING TOOL FOR CULTIVATING REFLECTIVE ETHICAL INQUIRY
Perrin Cohen, Melissa McDaniels, and Donna M. Qualters
Abstract. The AIR model we describe in this arti-
cle is a practical framework for cultivating reflective
inquiry into ethical issues that students, faculty, and
administrators experience in the midst of busy daily
lives and encounter in classroom discussions in a
discipline field. The model is highly adaptable to
academic and workplace settings and enables stu-
dents to clarify and refine their ethical thinking and
make more caring, compassionate, and respectful
choices. Quantitative and qualitative assessment
indicates that students who use AIR as an organizing
framework become more empowered and competent
to engage in reflective ethical inquiry.
W orld events mandate the need
for higher education to pro-
vide students with the appropriate knowl-
edge and skills to successfully and confi-
dently inquire into and analyze real life
ethical situations. There is trepidation
about doing this (Fish 2003), but higher
education in the United States was devel-
oped with the intention of producing citi-
Perrin Cohen is associate professor of psychology
at Northeastern University. Melissa McDaniels is a
doctoral student in higher, adult, and lifelong
education at Michigan State University. Donna M.
Qualters is associate professor of education at
Northeastern University.
120
zens who were ethically and morally
responsible (Lovett 1993). Although cur-
rent national and international events,
from the collapse of Enron to insider trad-
ing and religion-based improprieties,
have raised questions about the extent to
which even highly educated and highly
successful persons are prepared to meet
ethical challenges, there is interest now in
reviving and revitalizing this earlier
intention. Margaret Miller (2003), in an
editorial in Change magazine, stated,
“We must not only help students acquire
the material and mastery of the disci-
plines—we must also help them develop
both the capacity and the disposition to
behave with integrity . . . not by pro-
nouncing on what is right and wrong but
by nurturing their sense of responsible
personal and political agency.” Tradition-
al courses in literature, moral philosophy,
and religion as well as professional
ethics, ethical compliance, character edu-
cation, and values clarification have been
the experiences by which important con-
tent and critical thinking skills are taught
to undergraduates. However, these meth-
ods do not adequately address the culti-
vation of reflective ethical awareness,
inquiry, and leadership in disciplines, in
work situations, and in making career
choices. Ethical frameworks and affilia-
tions acquired with family, community,
and faith-based traditions are insufficient
to help students make that leap to reflec-
tive ethical inquiry. To move curricula
toward a reflective ethical inquiry model,
there is also the need to address the ped-
agogical challenges inherent in doing so.
Faculty Issues
We have found that faculty are often
reluctant to address ethical concerns that
arise in a discipline-specific course or in
an out-of-class experience such as coop-
erative education, experiential learning,
or service learning. When faced with hav-
ing to help students analyze and assess
the ethical uneasiness they experience,
faculty often default to their comfort
zone by ignoring the question, referring
students to ethical experts or courses, or
redirecting the question to content areas
COLLEGE TEACHING
of inquiry. When faculty do address these
concerns it is often from a personal ethi-
cal framework.
As a university that is based on the
principles of experiential education and
that views authentic out-of-classroom
experiences as valid learning environ-
ments, Northeastern University lacked a
mechanism to provide students with sys-
tematic training in approaching ethical
situations in their cooperative education
positions. Individually, ethical dilemmas
were often discussed by a faculty member
or a co-op coordinator who was comfort-
able in this role, but students were never
given an approach or framework to help
them become aware of and problem-solve
ethical concerns in any ongoing manner
as part of their university preparation. We
were giving our students the proverbial
fish rather than teaching them to fish.
Student Issues
With students, we have found that few
undergraduates have fully developed the
vocabulary, concepts, and practical rea-
soning needed to reflect upon very
ambiguous and multifaceted issues they
face in their classrooms, workplaces, and
personal lives. According to Baxter
Magolda (2001), only 2 percent of col-
lege seniors have become contextual
knowers with the cognitive ability to
examine situations from multiple per-
spectives, and to clarify their own think-
ing in the context of the opinions and
advice of others. Others, including King
and Kitchener (1994), also recognize that
students vary in their reflective ability,
including their belief in the uncertainty of
knowledge and the role of authority in
defining knowledge.
In our experience working with under-
graduates, we find that students either
feel disempowered to address ethical
issues, or approach complex and often
ambiguous ethical challenges by follow-
ing the strongest external influence at that
point in time such as their peers, the
media, family, friends, or religious tradi-
tions. Students also face strong academic,
professional, and workplace pressures to
succeed, which often lead to uncritical
labeling of situations as clearly right or
wrong and rationalizing wrong behavior
as justifiable when it is perceived as com-
monplace or in self interest (“Yes, cheat-
Vol. 53/No. 3
ing is wrong, but everyone does it,” or
“Stealing is wrong, but where I work,
people always ‘borrow’ materials”).
Although variation certainly exists
among students in their ability to assess
ethical dilemmas beyond the binary
assessment of right and wrong (Perry
1970), many students neglect to address
or question ethical concerns because of
the very influential voices and pressures
already mentioned. This, of course, does
not mean that students are incapable of
accessing inner and outer sources of wis-
dom, but rather, it means that because of
pressures and the lack of a conceptual
framework for reflective ethical inquiry,
they neglect to do so.
Students face challenges to find their
own voices within the context of the opin-
ions and perspectives of influential others
and within a culture that often promotes
the value of success above all else. In this
article, we describe a scaffolding tech-
nique for cultivating ethical inquiry, a
technique that students find beneficial in
their struggle to recognize, understand,
and address ethical concerns in their lives.
The AIR Model of Reflective
Ethical Inquiry
Recognizing both the need to have a
curricular model of reflective ethical
inquiry and the potential challenges
inherent in implementing such a model
(Cohen 1994), we developed the AIR
model of reflective ethical inquiry. The
AIR model is an educational tool for
helping teachers and students think cre-
atively about cultivating ethical inquiry. It
prepares students with the confidence,
interdisciplinary skills, and resources to
make more caring, compassionate, and
appreciative choices about ethical issues
such as fairness, honesty, and privacy that
they experience as students and later in
life as professionals.
In adopting the AIR model, the teacher
does not promote particular ethical think-
ing, decisions, opinions, and answers,
but rather he or she supports a process of
ethical inquiry regarding fairness, harm,
honesty, and respect. In so doing, stu-
dents become empowered to reflectively
inquire into specific ethical concerns of
their choice. This, in turn, allows them to
better appreciate the practical benefits of
making wiser choices that can affect both
themselves and others in classes, labora-
tories, residence halls, student activities,
and the workplace. The AIR reflective
process is a cyclical and repetitive one
that has multiple benefits for students. It
enhances ethical awareness and sensitiv-
ity, clarifies and refines ethical thinking
and decision-making, and transforms
ethical decisions into practical responses.
As a generic process, it has the addition-
al benefit of being applicable to a range
of educational and developmental levels
and settings.
The acronym AIR refers to the three
elements of the reflective process: Aware-
ness of ethical issues, Investigation of
those issues, and Responding to those
issues. A student recently mentioned that
AIR is also a good metaphor to describe
the reflective process because, as he put
it, the experience of ethical inquiry is like
“coming up for air!” We find that most
students have a similar positive experi-
ence. Engaging in ethical inquiry proves
to be refreshing, useful, and essential for
harmonious social relations.
Steps in Implementing
the AIR Model
There are four steps to cultivating the
elements (AIR) of ethical inquiry. The
first, establishing a safe space, is a pre-
condition for the remaining three. It
involves creating an atmosphere in which
students can step back into a reflective
mode (Schon 1983). The final three steps
cultivate the three elements of ethical
inquiry within that reflective atmosphere.
Step 1: Creating a Safe, Reflective
Context for Ethical Inquiry
Figure 1 describes the elements and
dynamics of the AIR model. As shown,
ethical inquiry must occur within a safe,
reflective context in which students feel
at ease to step back and reflectively
acknowledge, investigate, and respond to
ethical concerns. Those three elements of
inquiry are therefore enclosed within a
circle of safety.
To create this safe space, a teacher
needs to follow four general principles:
(1) create clear ground rules regarding
confidentiality and group interactions; (2)
clarify the goals of, and restrictions on,
reflective discussion; (3) actively role-
model the chosen guidelines; and (4)
121

Experience
Safe Environment
***Begin
Reflective
New Awareness
Awareness
Impact
Reflective Care Identify/Test
Responding Compassion Assumptions
Appreciation
Consequences Stakeholders
Identify/Test
Reflective
Assumptions Investigation
Safe Environment
FIGURE 1. AIR model of reflective ethical inquiry.
assume a facilitative teaching role that conversations are intended to support an
empowers students to relate to ethical individual’s inquiry about fairness, care,
issues with greater awareness, sensitivity, honesty, and so forth, and not a forum for
curiosity, and critical thinking. All four of self-righteous judgments, imposing tho-
these principles serve to empower stu- ughts, or derogatory statements. It is also
dents to move from a reactive mode in useful in establishing ground rules to
which they are likely to “jump to conclu- remind students only to raise ethical con-
sions” to a reflective mode that supports cerns that they are truly comfortable shar-
thoughtful inquiry. This shift can occur ing with others. Often, students and teach-
quickly in both individual and group dis- ers alike have difficulty in dealing with
cussions and, with periodic reminders, highly charged issues. A technique to
can persist for extended periods of time. facilitate this deeper level of thinking is
There are a number of techniques that active/generative listening (Isaacs 1993).
teachers can utilize to establish this safe When students are asked to pause before
environment. First, teachers, or teachers in speaking, to clarify what they have heard
consultation with students, must establish before they can respond, and to state how
ground rules for discussion. It is useful for the previous statements made them feel, it
a teacher to make it clear that all conversa- requires them to reflect, rather than react.
tions are to remain confidential. It is also Similarly, teachers must adopt a facili-
important to stress that the goal of discus- tative teaching role. To effectively
sion is to share reflections, thoughts, and empower a student’s ethical inquiry, the
research in a way that empowers individ- teacher needs to temporarily suspend his
ual students to clarify and refine their own or her traditional directive roles as advi-
ethical awareness and decision-making. In sor, teacher, and authority to play a facili-
other words, it needs to be made clear that tative role that acknowledges a student’s
122
ethical concerns and invites reflective
inquiry. Although this may initially feel as
if one is abrogating one’s responsibilities
as a teacher, framing the inquiry questions
correctly actually empowers students to
safely test their assumptions and to be
guided to more sophisticated thinking.
Step 2: Awareness—Empowering
Students to Identify and Acknowledge
Ethical Concerns/Issues
The AIR model is a bottom-up approach
to ethical inquiry. It begins with the teacher
creating an opportunity for students to
reflectively identify and acknowledge ethi-
cal concerns (awareness) of personal inter-
est in their workplace, in their readings,
classes, residence halls, and research. This
experience typically elicits an ethical
uneasiness (or, in some positive cases an
ethical uplift) which is the impetus to
reflectively inquire about the underlying
ethical concern, the context in which it
arose, and one’s beliefs, assumptions, and
intentions regarding it.
Although simple in principle, this ini-
tial phase can be challenging for both
teachers and students. For the teacher, it
involves creating conditions that empower
students to relate to ethical concerns in a
positive, constructive way rather than in
the usual reactive way (such as opinions,
avoidance, blaming, problem solving).
This process of “befriending an ethical
concern” is similar to the process by
which a beginning swimmer learns to
befriend water as something positive, sup-
portive, useful, and beneficial. Like water
for a swimmer, ethical issues are best seen
in this positive way. However, common
situations that students encounter are
often NOT seen in a positive light and
elicit a cognitive dissonance between core
values such as caring, fairness, and hon-
esty versus a strong desire to please, coop-
erate, and succeed as a student, researcher,
and employee. This often leaves students
feeling confused, overwhelmed, distract-
ed and distressed, all of which undermines
the confidence and competence needed
for reflective inquiry. The result is a
novice ethical inquirer who often sweeps
ethical concerns under the rug (“jump out
of the pool”), tries to overcome them with
brute force of blaming, criticism, and
uninformed opinions (“fight the water”),
or ignores them at the risk of becoming
COLLEGE TEACHING
desensitized to potential dangers and ways. Table 1 describes some pedagogical underlying ethical concern, the student’s
harm. These reactions are often accompa- tools that we have found useful for culti- natural tendency is no longer to react with
nied by either a lack of confidence in vating reflective awareness and sensitivity personal views and solutions but, rather,
one’s understanding and ability or, con- to ethical concerns and issues. with a reflective curiosity about the issue
versely, an unrealistic sense of overconfi- Awareness of the extent to which an and knowledge regarding it. This progres-
dence. The AIR model provides an anti- ethical challenge impacts others is anoth- sion from reflective awareness to reflec-
dote for these negative reactions and their er key aspect of this second step. We tive investigation takes hold at this point.
underlying causes. work with students to help them tease out As in the prior awareness phase, students
Thus, in this first stage of inquiry, stu- all of the potential stakeholders (Free- again are encouraged to maintain the
dents shift from viewing ethical concerns man 1984) who are impacted by ethical reflective mode. This means holding one’s
as unwanted problems, to opportunities decision making. We often find that stu- assumptions and hypotheses in a tentative
for personal and professional understand- dents think of ethical concerns only in way and a willingness to revise one’s eth-
ing, growth, and benefit. To facilitate this terms of themselves and those immedi- ical thinking and decision making. It also
shift, teachers need to alter their approach, ately involved, rather than seeing the means considering the broader impact of
as well. They need to temporarily suspend larger context affected by the issue. Hav- an issue, hearing and appreciating “other”
common reactions that they may ordinari- ing students construct stakeholder maps analyses and perspectives, and seeking
ly have to students raising ethical con- provides a powerful visual method for out and using whatever resources (see
cerns (such as blind assurances, “don’t students to see the repercussions of their table 2) serve to clarify and refine one’s
worry about it,” “don’t get distracted”). ethical thinking. thinking and decision making. In this
Teachers also need to put in abeyance nor- investigative phase, the teacher’s role is to
mal tendencies to advise or criticize, or to Step 3: Investigation—Cultivating reinforce this reflective mode in order to
overly identify with the drama of ethical Confidence and Competence to Research keep students focused on the research
issues. All of these normal teacher reac- Ethical Issues goal of clarifying and refining both their
tions discourage inquiry, but fortunately Having taken the time to reflectively ethical thinking and decision making and
they can be addressed in constructive identify, acknowledge, and discuss an that of others. In addition, the teacher
needs to support students’ research efforts
TABLE 1. Pedagogical Tools to Promote Student Reflection in finding valid resources and referrals,
and in using scholarly standards. Students
often find electronic access to resources
• Describe an ethical dilemma/concern you have encountered.
Describe the context in which this arose. convenient and useful in their ethical
What was your reaction at the time it happened? How did it make you feel? investigation. By providing students with
What was your reaction later? How did it make you feel? a reflective model for investigation, we
How did others who were present/or who you told this to react/feel? encourage them to think critically within
• Who is impacted by this dilemma? an inquiring mode rather than in a strictly
• Who are the stakeholders in this situation? problem-solving way. The inquiring mode
• What do you see as the specific underlying ethical issues? also encourages students to challenge and
Probe for specificity. explore the validity of their sources.
• What assumptions/beliefs were underlying your reaction to, and feeling about, the
situation? Step 4: Responding—Cultivating
Confidence and Competence to Convert
• How will you investigate these assumptions and beliefs?
Decisions into Practical Action
A student’s reflective awareness (A) in
this model naturally leads to reflective
TABLE 2. Some Interdisciplinary Resources and Tools for Reflective investigation (I) which, in turn, naturally
Investigation (I) leads to reflection on converting one’s
newly acquired wisdom into practical
Personal beliefs, assumptions, intentions action (R). This conversion to action can
Ethical guidelines/codes (e.g., professional, federal, state) be expressed in many ways. For example,
Ethical theories and applications a student may decide that the best way to
Ethics education (e.g., character education, AIR model)
Professional ethics (e.g., medical, engineering, research, business) cope with an untenable situation is
Social, natural and applied science (journals/texts) through self-care (such as exercise or
Humanities (e.g., literature, poetry, art, music) meditation), through sharing one’s think-
Religious/spiritual (e.g., texts, teachings) ing with friends and family, through
Legal and criminal justice (e.g., journals/texts) learning more about an issue, or by re-
Web/media resources (e.g., http://www.ethicaladvisory.com/)
Interview of practicing professionals evaluating major/career plans. Under
other circumstances, the same student
might remove herself from the situation,

Vol. 53/No. 3 123


TABLE 3. Some Interdisciplinary Resources and Tools for Reflective
Responding (R)
Research/research proposals
Artistic expression (e.g., collage, poetry, short story, music)
Advocacy (individual, communal)
Educational innovation (e.g., curriculum, pedagogical)
Design innovations (e.g., engineering, medical)
Development of alternatives (e.g., animal use, energy sources)
Revise and/or change career path
Self-care (e.g., talking with family/friends, religious/spiritual practices)
advocate for a cause, offer a proposal for
change, share research or innovation with
others, or offer a creative expression for
personal or public use (poems, literature,
art). As with the two earlier elements of
inquiry, the teacher’s role is again to rein-
force reflective thinking, to support stu-
dents’ exploratory efforts, and to remind
students that it is possible to convert eth-
ical thinking into a range of practical
actions that are more caring, compassion-
ate, and appreciative. Table 3 summarizes
some interdisciplinary resources and
tools that students have found useful in
this regard.
Benefits of the Model
The AIR model can be beneficially
applied as a teaching tool in many ways.
Globally, it can be a guiding framework
for collaboration among colleagues and
students to cultivate ethical inquiry at
departmental, college, and university-
wide levels. The model also can serve to
cultivate ethical inquiry in traditional
undergraduate and graduate courses, as
well as in non-traditional teaching (co-op,
internships, or residence halls) and pro-
fessional development (faculty, teaching
and research assistants). Such diverse
applications illustrate the model’s versa-
tility and power. At Northeastern Univer-
sity, the AIR model has been used in the
following specific ways.
A University-wide Collaborative for
Cultivating Ethical Inquiry
NUCASE: Integrating Practice and
Study in Ethics Education was an inter-
disciplinary, university-wide ethics edu-
cation center for thirteen years. The AIR
model provided the organizing frame-
work for a web of educational partner-
ships and collaborative programs with
academic and administrative offices
124
throughout the university. In keeping with
the AIR model, the programs, some of
which are mentioned below, created a
safe place for students and colleagues to
develop confidence and competence to
address ethical concerns and issues that
they experienced on- and off-campus.
NUCASE had sixteen partnerships with
offices throughout the university. Those
partnerships involved over seventy-five
faculty, staff, and alumni as well as
undergraduates and graduate students
from throughout the university.
Classroom Applications
AIR can also be utilized by discipline
faculty to assist students in analyzing
authentic ethical situations they will
encounter in the discipline. In an educa-
tion course, the AIR model was used as
the framework for students to deconstruct
ethical challenges that they incurred in
their professional life. Case studies, using
real teaching situations, were written for
students. The cases ranged in seriousness
from teacher gossip to potential child
abuse situations. The reflective model
described above was used as the debrief-
ing format for the students. Under “A,”
students were asked to describe the ethi-
cal situation in as much detail as possible,
describing their feelings about it and
mapping the stakeholders who were
impacted by the scenario. The stakehold-
er activity, in particular, was often very
enlightening to preservice teachers as
many of them had neither analyzed situa-
tions in that manner before nor realized
the far-reaching effects of an isolated
classroom situation. Under “I,” they were
asked to identify possible resources to
investigate this challenge. Only after dis-
cussion and reflection of “A” and “I”
were students allowed to begin to
approach “R” and respond with possible
solutions. They were then asked to reflect
again on the pros and cons of the differ-
ent solutions, and then tentatively identi-
fy an approach with which they were
comfortable. Informal feedback on learn-
ing in the course at the end of the term
indicated that almost 50 percent of stu-
dents identified AIR as one of the most
valuable elements of the course. Varia-
tions of this approach have been used in
an undergraduate seminar called “Ethics
in Psychology” and in a graduate seminar
called “Research Ethics.”
Student Affairs
We have used the AIR model approach
in nontraditional teaching situations on
campus as well. The Office of Student
Conduct and Conflict Resolution asked
us to train student leaders in the AIR
model. Again, training student leaders in
the AIR model and having them practice
applying it by using case studies and role-
plays would equip student leaders with
the ability to help themselves and their
peers analyze, not solve, ethical situations
in greater depth.
Faculty/Teaching Assistant Development
A ninety-minute AIR workshop has
been offered to faculty and teaching
assistants on campus. This training has
become part of the regular orientation to
campus for new teachers. Through role
playing, reflection on personal experi-
ence, and mock cases, teachers acquire a
technique to comfortably integrate ethical
inquiry into their discipline courses.
University-wide Ethics Forum
With the AIR model as the organizing
framework, the Ethics Forum provided
an opportunity for faculty and staff to
discuss a wide range of ethical concerns
that they face in their roles at the univer-
sity. There are few opportunities for
reflective and open-ended discussions of
ethical challenges and issues that teach-
ers, administrators, researchers, and
advisors face on a daily basis. Over the
years fifty colleagues have participated
in the Ethics Forum.
Experiential Education:
Ethical Awareness on Co-op
We found the AIR model particularly
useful in working with cooperative edu-
COLLEGE TEACHING
cation students at Northeastern. We
developed a one-credit course called Eth-
ical Awareness on Co-op in which stu-
dents who were working in full-time jobs
in the Boston area would reflect on ethi-
cal issues they faced in their day-to-day
lives in the work world. The course fol-
lowed a hybrid in-class/on-line format.
Again, both fellow students and faculty
facilitators supported each other in clari-
fying their own thinking about ethical
issues in a practice-based setting. This
model would work equally well with stu-
dents in service-learning, undergraduate
research, or internship programs.
Efficacy of the AIR Model
The Ethical Awareness on Co-op
course afforded us the best opportunity to
systematically assess the efficacy of the
AIR model as a teaching tool. We exam-
ined quantitative and qualitative data
obtained from four course sections during
the spring quarter 2002 and four sections
during the spring quarter 2003. Over a
two-year period, a total of seventy stu-
dents from four colleges (business admin-
istration; criminal justice; health sciences;
and arts and sciences) participated in the
course. In the same period, eight different
instructors, who were required to com-
plete a three-part training session on using
the AIR model, were involved in teaching
the course.
Quantitative Assessment
Prior to and following each course, stu-
dents were given a case study, a scenario of
an ethical issue that a student encounters
while in the workplace. Students were
asked to respond on a Likert scale (1 =
strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) to
questions that evaluated their confidence
and competence to address ethical issues
of the type raised in the case study. The
questions (table 4) were designed to
specifically address the three elements of
the AIR model: awareness, investigation,
and response.
Figure 2 plots mean composite scores
(1–5) for pre- and postcourse tests. The
results for 2002 and 2003 are plotted sep-
arately. Reliability coefficients (.57–.90)
for pre- and postresults indicate that with-
in each year, the questions were suffi-
ciently interconnected to justify combin-
ing individual items and conducting
Vol. 53/No. 3
separate matched paired-t-tests. The
matched pair t-tests were statistically sig-
nificant for both 2002 (t = 2.821, p =
.011, df = 19, two-tailed) and 2003 (t =
3.278, p = .002, df = 34, two tailed). Thus,
students expressed greater confidence
TABLE 4. Survey Questions
2002
1. I was able to identify the core ethical
concerns/issues in this case study.
2. I have the communication skills to
raise my ethical concerns with my
co-op employer.
3. I feel comfortable discussing ethical
issues such as those in this case study
with my co-op employer.
4. I feel I have the right to discuss ethical
issues with my co-op employer.
5. I think that there are practical benefits
for me and others to talk about ethical
concerns that I experience on the job.
6. I am familiar with resources and
people on and off campus that could
help me deal with ethical issues on my
co-op job.
7. I am prepared to investigate/research
an ethical issue that comes up on my
co-op job.
Pretest
4.5
4
3.5
Mean Composite Score
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
Year 2002
FIGURE 2. Mean composite scores for pre- and postcourse tests plotted separately
for 2002 and 2003.
and competence to engage in ethical
inquiry after taking the AIR-based course
than before. We suspect that the high
overall means may reflect students’ initial
unrealistic overconfidence in their ability
to address ethical issues in the first place.
2003
1. I thought that there was a core ethical
issue in the case study and was able
to clearly identify it.
2. If I experienced an ethical issue on
my co-op job, I would feel that I
have the right to raise it with
someone.
3. If I experienced an ethical issue on
my co-op job, I would feel com-
fortable raising it with someone.
4. I am familiar with resources and
people on and off campus that could
help me deal with ethical issues.
5. I am prepared to investigate/research
an ethical issue that comes up on my
co-op job.
Posttest
Year 2003
125
 A five-question course evaluation was
also distributed at the end of all courses
offered during 2002 and 2003. In response
to questions about meeting expectations,
organization, helpful ideas, personal
insight, and good use of one’s time, stu-
dents in each course responded (1 =
strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) with
mean scores ranging between 4.3 to 4.6
(2002) and 4.0 to 4.9 (2003) for individual
questions. Thus, students perceived value
in taking the AIR-based course.
Qualitative Assessment:
Student Feedback
Awareness. Several of our students
reported that prior to being exposed to the
model, they would often ignore or dis-
miss ethical issues that they encountered
in their co-op work placements. It was
common for us to hear that students
would “just put them [ethical issues]
behind them” or would label things that
they saw at work as something other than
unethical, such as “strange,” or a “norm”
of their worksite. Several students talked
about the importance of the impact of the
dialogue that they had with fellow stu-
dents, noting that it expanded awareness
and sensitivity to ethical concerns:
“By discussing things in class, it made me
think of things that I didn’t realize were
unethical.”
“I liked using the discussion board because
it helped me learn to be more aware by
reading the stories and learn about things I
didn’t realize.”
Other students referred directly to how
their awareness was expanded by learn-
ing to see situations through the perspec-
tives of others:
“I saw my job through other people’s eyes.
I didn’t have any concerns to raise on my
co-op job, but I could see things that were
unethical around me.”
“Through my classmates voicing their
experiences, I am more aware of what oth-
ers may find to be ethical issues.”
Investigation. The AIR model empha-
sizes the importance of investigating eth-
ical concerns, and learning more about
issues at hand prior to acting, to prevent
“knee-jerk” or unreflective responses. By
being asked to investigate issues before
acting, we hoped that students would
develop a greater ability to critically con-
126
sider the quality and nature of the
resources they were utilizing. A student
reported that she realized that she “must
understand my options before taking any
action.” Another student seemed to
express some relief in learning about the
wide variety of resources available.
“I know I don’t have to go to my advisor if
I am uncomfortable, but that I can go to the
Internet or hotlines or other resources for
guidance and information.”
Response. The ethical awareness on
co-op course primarily focused on trying
to expand students’ ability to identify and
become aware of ethical concerns. As a
result, it did not surprise us to find a vari-
ation in the responses to questions of
whether students felt more confident in
their ability to respond to ethical dilem-
mas they faced.
At the end of this course, one student
emphasized the difference between
becoming aware of issues and being con-
fident in taking action:
“Even though I can name the beast, doesn’t
mean that I can tame it. I think it would be dif-
ficult for me to respond to ethical dilemma.”
More students acknowledged an
increase in confidence and their ability to
respond to ethical concerns, compared to
where they were at the start of the course.
Students frequently mentioned they were
“more willing to speak up” and “more
confident” in their own responses to situ-
ations. One of our students who took the
class in 2002 eloquently talked about how
this increased awareness and comfort in
the course has made it compelling to
address issues head on:
“I know not to be afraid. If I’m uncomfort-
able, then there’s a problem that needs to be
dealt with. The workplace is a second
home; it should feel like one too. I have
realized that it’s not necessary to ignore
ethical concerns but question them and
straighten them out.”
Qualitative Assessment:
Faculty Feedback
We also queried eight faculty who were
trained to use the AIR model about its per-
ceived strengths and weaknesses. The
four faculty who responded noted that a
major strength is its adaptability and ease
of use. They told us “I like the model and
found it easy to use” and “I found I could
maneuver the discussion around this topic
and bring it back and emphasize the
model.” They all felt that their students
had responded well and that another
strength was AIR’s ability to be an overar-
ching framework: “(AIR) gave students a
way to express their answers that was
clear and consistent.” Weaknesses were
more heavily identified in the investiga-
tive piece; most felt that more work need-
ed to be done in this area. A surprising
outcome for faculty was their use of the
model in their professional life.
“I found this very useful to me as a cooper-
ative education advisor. I went to an
employer yesterday and the experience with
the AIR model gave me a way to express
concerns to the employer and lead them
through the process from the other end.”
Taken together, these quantitative and
qualitative assessments suggest that, as a
result of taking the course, students
became more empowered and competent
to engage in ethical inquiry. As a whole,
students were more mindful of ethical
issues, knew where to investigate issues
that they confronted, and, as a result, had
greater confidence in their ability to
respond in some constructive way to the
ethical underpinnings of a situation.
These combined results suggest that the
AIR model was an effective organizing
framework to help teachers cultivate a
student’s ethical inquiry in a work envi-
ronment. Further research is needed to
assess the efficacy of the model in tradi-
tional classroom settings. From a learning
theory perspective, the results also raise
important research questions about how
students learn to inquire. Given a safe
environment, do students learn A, I, and
R in a composite fashion or sequentially,
with feedback loops, as posited by the
AIR model (figure 1)? Do students learn
to inquire in different ways? Further
research will lead to revisions and refine-
ments of the model.
The AIR Model:
Discussion and Conclusion
The AIR model of ethical inquiry is a
departure from traditional approaches to
ethics education but has many elements in
common with them. Like other approach-
es, it includes many fundamentals of the
inquiry process: support of traditional
virtues (nonmalfeasance, honesty, and
COLLEGE TEACHING
respect), ethical theory and thinking, ethi-
cal decision making, and ethical behavior.
The model, however, adds an initial critical
element to the process, an element that is
usually missing: a first-hand personal
reflection on ethical concerns/issues expe-
rienced in everyday situations. The addi-
tion of this missing element provides stu-
dents with an open door, an invitation to
inquiry that is particularly important for
today’s students who are under great pres-
sure to personally and professionally suc-
ceed at the expense of not dealing with eth-
ical concerns. This “welcome” element is
also important because it serves as a bridge
between what too often appears to students
to be disparate worlds of practical experi-
ence and ethical study. By integrating those
worlds, the AIR model empowers and
inspires the confidence, interest, and initia-
tive to inquire further, and to keep ethical
inquiry alive in the midst of the hubbub of
daily life.
Unlike didactic approaches to ethics
education, the AIR model focuses on ped-
agogical conditions and tools needed to
cultivate reflective ethical inquiry and
leadership (Qualters and Cohen, in prepa-
ration). The personal, collective, and
interdisciplinary nature of that process
makes it highly suitable for different stu-
dent ages, levels of moral development
(Perry 1970; Gilligan 1982) and interests.
It also makes it highly adaptable for dif-
ferent teacher experiences, interests, and
knowledge. As previously shown, the
flexibility of this model allows it to have
Vol. 53/No. 3
beneficial applications well beyond the
traditional classroom setting.
Regardless of what students and teach-
ers bring to the table, the goal of the AIR
model remains the same: to help students
make more caring, compassionate, and
respectful choices through enhanced
awareness, clarification, and refinement
of ethical thinking and decision making.
The outcome of this process is the emer-
gence of enhanced sensitivity, knowl-
edge, reflection, clarification of values,
skill development, and character develop-
ment. It is important to realize that these
benefits emerge in the process of inquiry
and are not taught as ends in themselves.
The emergent nature of a student’s learn-
ing and understanding is particularly
valuable because it empowers student
confidence and also serves to transcend
the controversial “ethical indoctrination”
issue (Ryan and Bohlin 1999), that stu-
dents, teachers, and parents sometimes
have with ethics education. The AIR
model stirs respectful interest and mutual
goodwill without controversy.
Key words: ethics, inquiry, AIR model
NOTES
1. The term AIR Model has been service
marked.
2. The authors thank Sandra Meyer Cohen,
David Hall, and Jim Stellar for their ongoing
support and encouragement in developing the
AIR model and NUCASE programs. The
authors also thank Sean Allen, Marty Block,
Judy Hall, Dan Quinn, Glenn Hill, Elizabeth
Atreed, and Cynthia Sanders for their many
generous contributions.
REFERENCES
Baxter Magolda, M. 2001. Making their own
way: Narratives for transforming higher
education to promote self development.
Sterling, VA: Styles.
Cohen, P. S. 1994. Taking science to heart: A
personal ethic for responsible science.
Ethics and Behavior 4:59–67.
Fish, Stanley. 2003. All in the game: Aim low.
Chronicle of Higher Education, May 16,
http://chronicle.com/prm/weekly/V49/i36/
36c00501.htm.
Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic management:
A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
Gilligan, C. 1982. In a different voice: Psycho-
logical theory and women’s development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Isaacs, W. 1993. Taking flight: Dialogue, col-
lective thinking, and organizational learning.
In Report from the center for organizational
learning. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
King, P. M., and K. S. Kitchener. 1994. Devel-
oping reflective judgement. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Lovett, Clara. 1993. To affect intimately the
lives of the people: American professors
and their society. Change 25 (4): 26–27.
Miller, Margaret. 2003. The honest heart.
Change 35 (5): 4–5.
Perry, William G., Jr. 1970. Forms of intellec-
tual and ethical development in the college
years: A scheme. New York: Holt.
Qualters, D. M., and Cohen, P. Forthcoming.
Practicing shared ethical leadership.
Ryan, K., and K. E. Bohlin, 1999. Building
character in the schools. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Schon, D. 1983. The reflective practitioner.
New York: Basic.
127