topics,such as ethics, which are related to the professional practice of engineering. These coursescommonly utilize case studies focusing on ethics as the basis for student discussions.1 Measuringthe student learning resulting from the case study process is often very subjective, difficult toquantify, inconsistent between evaluators, and costly to adminsiter.2,3Proficiency in engineering professional skills, such as ethics, as described in ABET criterion 3 -student outcomes 4, is critical for success in the multidisciplinary, intercultural team interactionsthat characterize 21st century engineering careers. These professional skills may be readilyassessed using a performance assessment that consists of three components: (1) a task that
and other assessments. They also indicate some of the techniques their peers use insupervised (e.g. tests, quizzes, exams etc.) and un-supervised (e.g. homework, projects, labreports, online environment etc.) assessments. The survey also reveals whether students are morelikely to cheat in the major required courses or non-major elective courses etc. Some of thetechniques that deter students from cheating are also discussed.Literature Review:Academic misconduct has long been a problem on college campuses in the United States.Studies across the nation have consistently shown that a majority of undergraduate studentsacross various disciplines engage in some form of academic misconduct during their collegecareer [1, 2, 3, and 4].Various
if the situation were real, role-play simulations tend to have higher psychological fidelity.9Thus, they are thought to be effective at forcing participants to feel the emotions of a situationand to display skills needed in an actual situation. Further, they are intended to developawareness of the difficulty of enacting the decisions that a person makes in a realistic situation.A single role-play can open students to the realistic difficulties involved with following throughon decisions.1 Thus, role-plays have the potential to show different perspectives on a problem,improve the depth of understanding, and capture participants’ attention because of theexperiential nature and realism of the training design. However, there are some concerns
applied ethical model, egoism, benevolence, and principle ethics are included.9 Pastresearchers have found five consistent ethical climate types.11-12 These include instrumentality,benevolence, independence, rules, and laws and codes (see Table 1). Employees can usemultiple ethical climates in decision-making. Measures of ethical climate emphasize that certainclimate types are relevant in different contexts (i.e. ethical problem occurs internally in the team,the issue relates to laws).13Most of the past research on ethical climate has been based in organizational research. However,it has some potential use in researching teams. Teams may develop a set of rituals, practices, ashared language and ways of cohesive thinking similar to an
purposelyremaining neutral on their personal stance with these issues.3.1 Issue #1: Unmanned Systems for Military ApplicationsThe development and utilization of unmanned systems for military applications is currently ahighly contested and debated issue. For professional engineers and engineering faculty, themajor concern is performing research sponsored by defense organizations such as the U.S.Department of Defense or a defense subcontractor.Robotics researcher, Ronald Arkin, has written a number of papers1,2 and a book3 in support ofdeveloping ethical principles into war-fighting unmanned systems. His career has supportedprojects from ordinance disposal to the lethal Defense Advanced Research Project Agency(DARPA) Unmanned Ground Combat Program, which can
with their cognitivelevel of moral reasoning2.Kohlberg identified three levels of moral development, each level having two stages: Level 1) the pre-conventional, at which neither moral rules nor social conventions areexplicitly understood. In Stage 1 of Level 1, moral judgments are based on physicalconsequences of behavior; that is, avoidance of punishment and deference to authority constitutegood behavior. Stage 2 moves to a pragmatic or hedonistic orientation in which moral judgmentsare based on what satisfies one's own needs. Level 2) the conventional, focuses on conforming to the norms of one's group. In Stage 3,moral judgments are based on pleasing others and living up to socially acceptable norms; Stage 4
undesirableconsequences for a society, an employer or even the engineer or technical manager making thedecision. Fledderman 1 points out that the resolution of this type of problem involves the sametype of reasoning present in engineering design. For example, the recognition that there is no one“right” answer, and that not everyone involved may agree on one answer, especially at the outsetof the process, is common, along with the presence of quantitative and qualitative specifications, Page 24.540.2which may involve both site-specific conditions (e.g., weather, terrain, accessibility, size of localpopulation), and societal parameters such as the local economy
and which is not dependent upon being metabolized forthe achievement of any of its primary intended purposes2. This definition by United States FDAreflects how closely the biomedical devices interact with human life and functionality. When faced by ethical concerns in different stages of designing such devices, engineer’sfirst resource to look for guidance, based on their education, would be the code of ethics3. Codeof ethics, in turn, recommends following regulations and industry standards. Despite thepresence of code of ethics and regulatory guidelines, multiple ethical issues remain unresolved.This paper presents three of the example concerns faced by biomedical engineers. These are: 1)sufficient safety of the user (during
or ignoring parts of the information that do not quite “fit”).66 1. Exercise 1 – “Anatomy of In-Depth Listening”: Students are asked to Page 24.542.9 reflect on their own experiences of in-depth listening, in personal or professional encounters. They are to focus on four events: a) a time when they felt really listened to, b) a time when they remember really listening to someone else, c) a time when they felt really not listened to, and d) a time when they remember really not listening to someone else. Students are asked to describe behaviors, observations, and feelings that accompanied these interactions
in the Pacific Northwest, classified as Doctorate-granting RU/VH (ResearchUniversity, very high research activity) and from a moderate size teaching institution in theMidwest, classified as Master’s L (Master’s Colleges and Universities, larger programs)according to the Carnegie Basic Classification.36 Three different populations of students fromthe two institutions were studied:• Public Research 1 (N = 92): these students were enrolled in a large, entry-level electrical engineering course (2011) and were provided with an article on waste electronics, as well as questions/prompts pertaining to the article. Students were then asked to, in exchange for extra course credit, write an essay on the article as guided by the provided
ethics in a disciplinary context and included anextensive discussion with a philosophy professor about ethical frameworks. The learningapproach was through ethical case studies, long used as an approach to teaching ethics (e.g.,Harris et al., 2013)11. Discipline-based teams discussed and critiqued ethical case studies andwrote reflections. The multidisciplinary context was examined through 1) class-wide discussionsand 2) multidisciplinary, small group discussions where students presented their discipline-basedcase to fellow scholars in other STEM disciplines. The second semester (fall 2013) usedmultidisciplinary projects to explore the broad topic of “garbage”. This is a topic important tosociety that STEM students, especially engineers, will
. Page 24.995.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2014 Predatory Online Technical Journals: A Question of EthicsIntroductionIn 2009, Cornell University doctoral student Philip Davis embarked upon a bold venture: afterreceiving numerous hectoring emails from Bentham Science requesting articles for publication,he and fellow adventurer Kent Anderson, an executive at The New England Journal of Medicine,used the SCIgen paper generator, developed by MIT students “to maximize amusement” byrandomly generating nonsensical computer science papers,1 to create a scholarly looking butpreposterous manuscript and submitted the result to Bentham’s The Open Information ScienceJournal. Using pseudonyms, the
rarely100% original. Due to the need to refer to previous research results to provide a context forcurrent research,1 academic writing is often inherently intertextual in nature.2 While theboundary line between appropriate source text use and plagiarism may be vague for somestudents,3 the consequences for crossing that line, even inadvertently, are not. Students andresearchers accused of plagiarism can suffer serious consequences.In 2006, 55 theses and dissertations at Ohio University’s Russ College of Engineering andTechnology were investigated due to allegations of plagiarism, with at least one student havinghis degree revoked.4,5 In 2007, a number of papers previously submitted by internationalphysicists to the arXiv preprint server were found
technologies. We do so by 1) explaining what is differentabout emerging technologies when compared to existing technologies and why ethics isnecessary, 2) examining the functions and characteristics of law, regulation, and professionalcodes in engineering education and in providing guidance for practitioners, 3) arguing that law,regulation, and codes are not enough to guide practice, that this is especially true for emergingtechnologies, and thus engineering education must go beyond law, regulation, and codes andfocus on developing skills of ethical analysis and judgment, and nurturing ethical sensitivity,creativity, and wisdom. We conclude with 4) a description of our work in developing twomodular courses that include societal, ethical, environmental
realistic constraintsas economic, environmental, social, political, health and safety, manufacturability, andsustainability” and “an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility”1. In the UnitedStates, engineering ethics education has primarily relied on three “ethical resources”: codes ofethics, ethical case studies, and ethical theories.2 Teaching “abstract” codes of ethics and ethicaltheories is necessary but not sufficient for improving students’ abilities to incorporate ethicalconsiderations in engineering practice, as engineering practice often involves a variety of“particular” and situational moral judgments. A problem with current case pedagogy is that it is
attrition from engineering occurs within the first year38, emphasizing the socialrelevance of engineering within first year courses may be particularly important to help retainstudents with a strong sense of social responsibility. Programs should help students be awarethat engineering is in fact a career where they can actualize their SR goals.The goal of this research was to explore the attitudes of first year engineering students towardsocial responsibility and how these attitudes were formed. The specific research questions were:(1) How do students define SR?(2) How is SR learned and formulated prior to coming to college and throughout the students’ first year of college?(3) How do students relate engineering to SR?(4) Does the students