AC 2011-1205: INTEGRATING ETHICS INTO UNDERGRADUATE EN-VIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND ECONOMICS EDUCATIONDonald Arthur Brown, Penn State University Donald A .Brown is Associate Professor, Environmental Ethics, Science, and Law, at Penn State Uni- versity. Professor Brown’s major interests include integrating ethical considerations into environmen- tal policy formation and helping environmental professionals and civil society understand ethical issues that arise in scientific and economic descriptions of environmental problems. Professor Brown formerly worked as a systems engineer and environmental lawyer. He also has a graduate training in philosophy and ethics. Before coming to Penn State, Professor Brown worked for the
AC 2011-1604: YOGI MEETS MOSES: ETHICS, PROGRESS AND THEGRAND CHALLENGES FOR ENGINEERINGJoseph R. Herkert, Arizona State University Joseph Herkert, DSc, PE is Lincoln Associate Professor of Ethics and Technology in the School of Letters and Sciences and the Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes at Arizona State University. He has taught engineering ethics and related courses for more than twenty years. His work on engineering ethics has appeared in engineering, law, social science, and applied ethics journals. Dr. Herkert is the past Editor of IEEE Technology & Society and a founding Associate Editor of Engineering Studies. He has recently served on the IEEE Ethics and Member Conduct Committee and the
AC 2011-1321: WE’VE BEEN FRAMED! ENDS, MEANS, AND THE ETHICSOF THE GRAND(IOSE) CHALLENGESDonna M Riley, Smith College Donna Riley is Associate Professor of Engineering at Smith College. Page 22.1677.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2011 We’ve been Framed! Ends, Means, and the Ethics of the Grand(iose) Challenges AbstractSince the National Academy of Engineering’s Grand Challenges were first publicly articulated in2008, engineering educators have used its ideas to motivate their work. While there is a sense ofmoral imperative around pursuing selected Challenges
AC 2011-1120: ETHICAL AND SOCIETAL IMPLICATIONS OF INTERNET-BASED ENGINEERING EDUCATION: FACULTY AND STUDENT PER-SPECTIVESK.L. Jordan, Michigan Technological University K.L. Jordan completed her bachelor’s and master’s degrees in Mechanical Engineering at Michigan Tech- nological University in 2006 and 2008 respectively. During her undergraduate tenure she was an active member of the National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE) and currently serves on the Board of Direc- tors. She is also the current President of the ASEE student chapter at Michigan Tech. As the recipient of a King-Chavez-Parks graduate fellowship, Ms. Jordan has agreed to seek an engineering faculty position upon completion of her doctoral degree
engineering "Grand Challenges" lately developed by the National Academy ofEngineering enter a long historical tradition of such epically scaled to-do lists, dating back to theprofession's origins in the mid-nineteenth century. The mission statements, codes of ethics, and,later, lists of so-called grand challenges that have issued from engineering societies have servedthe dual function of directing engineers' work and supporting particular cultural roles for thesebodies of experts. Almost all such plans, regardless of period or sponsoring body, have alsoblended highly practical aims of industrial and infrastructural development with more inchoateprojects of societal uplift. The Grand Challenges of the NAE, currently playing a formative rolein many
of mind or in Emerson’s words, “the intellectbeing where and what it sees.”11 Transformation requires that we are transformed by theexperience, that is, what was outside is now inside. We are shaped or developed or sculpted bythe experience. Imaginative insight can be once again described most eloquently by Goethe wholikened imaginative insight to the formation of a new organ: “Every object well-contemplatedopens a new organ of perception in us.”12 Page 22.1582.4 • Respect: This stage deals with the ethical foundation upon which we view the subject. It deals with both the quality and the character of our interest in
. • Personal and social responsibility spanning civic knowledge and engagement (local and global), intercultural knowledge and competence, ethical reasoning and action, foundations and skills for lifelong learning. • Integrative and applied learning including synthesis and advanced accomplishment across general and specialized studies.Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, announced in 2005 the formation of the Commissionon the Future of Higher Education and charged it with developing a comprehensive nationalstrategy for postsecondary education. The Commission issued a report, A Test of Leadership:Charting the Future of U.S. Higher Education.2 One finding noted that the quality of studentlearning at U.S. colleges and
. Bucciarellii, L. (2003). Engineering Philosophy. Delft University Press. Delft. 6. Downey, G. L., J.C. Lucena, and C. Mitcham. (2007). Engineering Ethics and Identity: Emerging Initiatives in Comparative Perspective. Science and Engineering Ethics. 13(4), 463-487. 7. Goldman, S. L. (2004). Why We Need a Philosophy of Engineering: A Work in Progress. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews. 29(2):163-176. 8. Lewin, D. (1983). Engineering Philosophy – The Third Culture. Leonardo. 16(2), 127-132. 9. Moser, F. (1997). Philosophy of/and engineering. An Introduction to and Survey of the Engineering and Technology Problems for the 21st century. Chemical and Biochemical Engineering Quarterly. 11(1), 1-5. 10
some evaluation of evaluating content conclusion. evaluation of the the evidence based on evidence. evidence presented. presented. Identifies ethical Clearly identifies Poorly identifies and Does not identify issues but not and states ethical states an ethical and state any ethical states them in issues
education. A second set of challenges has interrogated the contents of the engineering sciences and engineering design. Social philosophers have long mapped engineers as technological intelligentsia whose success depends upon a wide range of social, ethical, and epistemological criteria (Goldman 1984; Lenk 1984; Davis 1996). Micro-‐ethicists have made visible contrasts between formal codes and actual practices (Baum and Flores 1982; Martin and Schinzinger 1983). More recently, macro-‐ethicists make visible a range of broader material projects that engineering formation and engineering work could serve or, in some cases, does serve (Herkert 2009
communication skillsin the existing engineering curricula. Communication instruction has always been an important part of theuniversity education process but this current initiative strives to focus on the study and improvement of technicalcommunication skills throughout engineering coursework requirements. This reflects the need of employers forengineers with strong communication skills and the desire of our students to improve these skills. Three engineeringcourses have been targeted for the initiative: ENGR 1201 (Fundamentals of Engineering), ET 2371 (Metals andCeramics), and ENGR 1171 (Engineering Ethics). The first two courses have a laboratory component with writtenlaboratory reports and oral presentations while the third is a course created in
“professional ethics” (normal courses are 3-credit).At the same time, the authors themselves have taught separately and together with each other andother historians over the past several years a two-course sequence on the history of technologyand an introduction to “science, technology and society” with a strong historical component.More specialized history of technology courses have also been given.One would think that such courses would be ideal for fulfilling the ABET requirement, and thatengineering students, if not required to take such courses, would at least be encouraged to do so.Yet very few engineering students enroll in them. Engineering students have a very fullcurriculum, and take those humanities courses that fit their tight schedules and
involve diverse stakeholders. The pilot projects in this group integrateengineering and liberal arts topics, and in some cases students and faculty, and direct thestudent’s attention to the “problem formulation” phase of design. They challenge students todevelop innovative and ethical approaches to complex, wide-ranging problems.By deliberately keeping the challenges broad, and asking students to consider each problem frommany perspectives, these projects encourage students to develop a better understanding ofengineering in context and the need for knowledge of other disciplines. Faculty from sixinstitutions will work on introductory course projects. The mix of institutions, including threeinstitutes of technology, two liberal arts colleges, and
injudiciously are aseriously flawed form of communication. The quote from Henry Petroski with which this paperbegins highlights the ethical dimensions of flawed communication: if bullet lists make it moredifficult to discern faulty reasoning or ill-founded conclusions, they make it harder for engineersto meet their professional obligation to protect the welfare and safety of the public and theinterests of their employers and clients.This inquiry into the history of bullets is designed to help engineers and technical communicatorsunderstand how we arrived at our current situation so that we might improve it. Specifically, thishistory illuminates the range of technical, organizational, and cultural factors that led to theemergence, proliferation, and
AC 2011-676: 100 FRESHMAN CIVIL ENGINEERS: A MODEL FOR IN-TEGRATING COMMUNICATION AND TEAMWORK IN LARGE ENGI-NEERING COURSESApril A. Kedrowicz, University of Utah Dr. April A. Kedrowicz is the Director of the CLEAR (Communication, Leadership, Ethics, And Re- search) Program at the University of Utah, a collaboration between the College of Humanities and College of Engineering. The program was developed in 2003 through a grant from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, with the goal of integrating communication (speaking and writing), teamwork, and ethics into the curriculum of every department in the College of Engineering. Dr. Kedrowicz has been the director of the program since its inception and has developed
over the years as a natural evolution...Diversity 1.0 was about compliance and abiding by government regulations. Diverity 2.0 revolved around ethics, morality and social responsibility. Today, Diversity 3.0 is about business integration and globalization...and, ultimately, producing increased employee productivity and new revenue streams. 27Whether competitive anxiety is the basis of diversity reform efforts, or invoked by diversityadvocates because they believe it to be so for corporate leaders and economic policy makers, it isnonetheless a priority which subordinates inclusion to performance and productivity. Sufficientindustrial productivity, or profits, are of course culturally determined and have not
engineering education.Christy Moore, University of Texas, Austin Christy Moore is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin where she has taught in Engineering Communication since 1993. Ms. Moore’s current research is focused on ways of expanding the undergraduate engineering curriculum to better incorporate study of communication skills, global responsibility, and engineering ethics. Since 2004, Ms. Moore has developed curriculum for and taught a First-year Seminar that addresses the impact of technology on society and the environment. Page 22.332.1
, Page 22.1015.9simultaneously, through matters of professional jurisdiction that goes back to the complexprofessional configuration of engineering. Whether in response to the ascent of the managerialprofession during the 1920s; or efforts, amidst postwar “physics envy,” to differentiateengineering from science by embracing a new ethic of professional responsibility (even asengineers turned, simultaneously, to science to compete more directly with physicists); or yetagain, during the late 60s and the 1970s, to lay claim to even broader claims of socialresponsibility through direct utilization of liberal knowledge, liberal education has served as apreferred means for the “reconversion strategies” of engineers, at least among those committedto the
into their courses smoothly, without depending on supplementalinstruction from CxC staff. In a previous paper, we reported on the results of a survey of facultymembers teaching C-I courses.19 We found that faculty members believed that students learnedthe technical content in more detail when the course was taught in a C-I format. Rather than Page 22.131.9merely teaching rhetorical concepts as important tools for the students’ futures, we are able touse communications to further students’ critical thinking regarding topics that are vital toprospective engineers, like ethics, teamwork, and lifelong learning.We believe that there is an opportunity
State University’s Professional Learning Institutelists five areas of learning that have been added to that school’s curriculum in order to meet theconcerns of ABET and various professional societies: ethics, leadership, innovation, civic andpublic engagement, and global culture and diversity.4 While the particulars of this program’simplementation are not important for this discussion, Siller’s paper makes it clear thatcommunication skills are not being introduced to technical curricula in isolation. Curriculumcommittees in engineering colleges are taking up communication as a single part of a large effortto address the concerns of their many stakeholders. Wheeler and McDonald present a detailed
Microsoft Project to develop a Gantt chart for theirproject and are required to update the chart as their project progresses.System Design Requirements Document: As a team, students identify the necessaryrequirements to meet their customer objectives and develop a system specification.Realistic Design Constraints: As a team, students identify the design constraints (budgetary,environmental, sustainable, social, political, health and safety, manufacturability, ethical, andlegal) that apply to their project and system.Hazard Analysis: As a team, students use a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) toidentify potential safety hazards, the effects of failure, the severity of failure, the probability offailure, and the current or potential design
,and international projects in the engineering workplace. Research methods in studyingengineering practice included mixed quantitative and qualitative online surveys,interviews with practicing engineers, and case studies of engineering firms. We foundthat effective engineers value communication, problem-solving, teamwork, ethics, life-long learning, and business skills. Many of them note that their undergraduate educationdid not always prepare them well in these areas. Because of these two misalignments, wehypothesize that potential engineering talent goes underdeveloped at important stages ofeducational pathways as students move from high school to college. We believe thatincorporating these findings into an interactive special session would
Creating and integrating effective graphics Providing clear technical descriptions Providing logical transitions between ideas Unifying paragraphs Providing constructive criticism for peers Writing or presenting effectively as a team Listening and participating productively in a team meeting Thinking critically about political, social, and economic constraints Thinking critically about ethical ramifications Writing effective email Employing audience-appropriate tone and style Using proper grammar, punctuation, and spellingWe then asked our