Paper ID #12492Exploring Ethical Validation as a Key Consideration in Interpretive ResearchQualityDr. Joachim Walther, University of Georgia Dr. Walther is an assistant professor of engineering education research at the University of Georgia (UGA). He is a director of the Collaborative Lounge for Understanding Society and Technology through Educational Research (CLUSTER), an interdisciplinary research group with members from engineering, art, educational psychology and social work. His research interests range from the role of empathy in engineering students’ professional formation, the role of reflection in
Paper ID #13322Exploring the Social Processes of Ethics in Student Engineering Design TeamsMegan Kenny Feister, Purdue University Megan is a fourth year doctoral candidate in the Brian Lamb School of Communication at Purdue Uni- versity pursuing a Ph.D. in Organizational Communication with a minor in mixed methods. Her research focuses on engineering education, design, organizational identity, identification and socialization, team communication, innovation, and technology. She is currently working on an NSF grant examining ethi- cal reasoning and decision-making in engineering project teams, and examining the relationship
”). Professional codes of ethics and ABET requirements are sometimes applied, withsustainability introduced as a design constraint.3 In our experience, these professionalrequirements are often treated only in senior design projects, and then only as items on achecklist. Optional minor and certificate programs may exist for those engineering students whoare interested, but even here crucial tensions often go unexplored between definitions ofsustainability (between weak and strong sustainability4, 5, between “technological sustainability”and “ecological sustainability”6, between “eco-efficiency” and “eco-effectiveness”7, or betweensustainability and sustainable development8, 9, 10, 11) and even between areas of the triple bottomline.3 Missing, too, are
Paper ID #12225Which Courses Influence Engineering Students’ Views of Social Responsibil-ity?Dr. Nathan E Canney PE, Seattle University Dr. Nathan E. Canney teaches civil engineering at Seattle University. His research focuses on engineering education, specifically the development of social responsibility in engineering students. Other areas of interest include ethics, service learning, and sustainability education. Dr. Canney received bachelor’s degrees in Civil Engineering and Mathematics from Seattle University, a master’s in Civil Engineering from Stanford University with an emphasis on structural engineering, and a
Page 26.725.9 11. Perry, W. G., Jr. 1970. Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A Scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
students to the overallcomplexity of wicked problems3,11, while giving students the tools and cognitive awareness toeffectively and confidently respond to these wicked problems in their future work asprofessionals, designers, and engineers (see Hess, Brownell, & Dale 2014 for the instructionaldesign1). The survey we have designed corresponds to the following learning objectives:As a result of participating in the course, students will… 1) Develop confidence in responding to wicked, sustainability-related problems 2) Become conscious of the ethical and professional responsibilities within their field in a (a) global, (b) social, and (c) environmental contextIn the first WPSI iteration, we created and distributed 15 loosely related
and withdrawal, and alternative methodological approaches to organizational and psychological science.Qin Zhu, Purdue University Qin Zhu is a PhD student in the School of Engineering Education at Purdue University. His main research interests include global, comparative, and international engineering education, engineering education pol- icy, and engineering ethics. He received his BS degree in materials science and engineering and first PhD degree in the philosophy of science and technology (engineering ethics) both from Dalian University of Technology, China.Ms. Kavitha D Ramane, Purdue UniversityNeha Choudhary, Purdue University Programs Neha choudhary is currently pursuing doctoral studies at Purdue university
instructors at four Canadianinstitutions.Although there is research on engineering ethics education3,4,5,6, there is a gap in examining howengineering instructors view the inclusion of ethics and the other hallmarks of STSE in their ownteaching. This research was designed to help fill this gap in the field, focusing on three keyresearch questions: (1) How do undergraduate engineering instructors describe their teachinggoals and practices?; (2) How do undergraduate engineering instructors describe their teachinggoals and practices with respect to exploring the relationship between engineering, society andthe environment (i.e. STSE)?; and (3) What are the specific challenges or enabling factors inexploring the relationship between engineering, society
. Discussion.The field of engineering education has long focused on instilling a set of core ethicalprinciples in developing engineers28, 29, 30. Guided by the U.S. Accreditation Board forEngineering and Technology (ABET), undergraduate engineering programs aim to helpstudents develop “an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility”31. Ingeneral, however, engineering ethics have emphasized principles such as accountabilityto the client—defined as the people or organizations who have retained the engineer’sservices, not as the broader public for whom a given product or innovation will result ineither benefit or harm30. Some have critiqued this approach as insufficient for producingengineers who think critically about the social implications of
my own time to understand more or more of the topic than I learned in class so once you do that you can formulate a better idea of it.”Other traits were mentioned throughout the interviews that suggest that having certain traits, suchas being open-minded or flexible or having a strong work ethic or desire to succeed, makepromotion to engaged thinking much easier. Further, while the trait of confidence was rarelyexplicitly discussed, the way in which each student talked about his or her project throughout thesummer exhibited a perceivable growth in confidence that cannot be easily captured with a fewshort quotes, but nonetheless contributed to a likely increased tendency to utilize engagedthinking.Transitional (engagement inducing
students’ endogenous PIwould positively predict their positive emotions, and would negatively predict their cortisollevels. While research has demonstrated that cortisol levels in human saliva are goodpredictors of a biological response to stress and discomfort, few studies have explored theassociations between cortisol levels and positive emotions, specifically enjoyment, orfuture-oriented motivation, bringing significance to the current study. Page 26.1622.5MethodParticipants Our participants were recruited in an engineering ethics course at a public university inthe Southwest of the US. Among the 52 students in the in the sampled class, 31
No effect.5. If I could decide how homework Problems come from (Textbook, Unknown sources, Instructor’swas assigned and graded, written) Problems are graded (Always, Never, Sometimes) Solutions available? ( Yes, No, After homework is turned in)6. Do you think it is ethical for Yesstudents to use solution manuals? Yes, but only if it is used for learning and not just copying No I don't knowComments Table 2. Faculty survey questionsFaculty survey1. Use of solution manuals has a Strongly Agreedamaging effect on student learning
, University of Pittsburgh. His research focuses on improving the engineering education experience with an emphasis on assessment of design and problem solving, and the study of the ethical behavior of engineers and engineering managers. A former Senior Editor of the Journal of Engineering Education, Shuman is the Founding Editor of Advances in Engineering Education. He has published widely in engineering education literature, and is co-author of Engineering Ethics: Balancing Cost, Schedule and Risk - Lessons Learned from the Space Shuttle (Cambridge University Press). He received his Ph.D. from the Johns Hopkins University in Operations Research and a B.S.E.E. from the University of Cincinnati. Dr. Shuman is an ASEE Fellow
participationUndergraduate research. Hirsch, Linsenmeier, Smith, and Walker investigated theeffectiveness of summer research experience in improving bioengineering students’ competencyin ethics and communication.17 Through comparing 39 participants’ assessment results at thebeginning and end of the summer research, this study revealed that students developed a greaterawareness of key concepts in ethics, and understood the importance of audience and themultifaceted nature of technical communication.Zydney, Bennett, Shahid, and Bauer investigated the impact of undergraduate research onstudent development by comparing 157 graduates with research experience and 88 graduateswithout research experience.18 They found that the graduates with undergraduate
ortheir preference for aggregated or disaggregated data in a given project.3We see all such choices by STEM education researchers as powerful indicators of socialunderstandings of equity and inclusion and find the absence of routine inquiry about theseconditions of research to be concerning. As Riley writes of one ubiquitous methodologicalcommitment in particular, “The evidence-based process [of STEM education research] isinstrumental in that it is a means to a given end, and the ethics or morality of those ends is notconsidered.”4 We see “ethics or morality” configuring all research choices and along with Riley,envision a set of critical questions that could potentially increase the impact of educationalresearch upon social inequities. Such
course was complete using several qualitative methods: an anonymous on-line open-ended survey, a semi-structured focus group interview, individual interviews with students, the instructor and teaching assistants, and document analysis of student course work. The instructor was also asked to communicate his learning objectives in written form, and we took anecdotal field notes during our initial meetings when we discussed the possibility and implementation of the study. Two consecutive cohorts of students (N=80 per cohort) were invited to participate from two course offerings: Winter 2013 and Winter 2014. Ethics approval was procured from our institution’s Research Ethics Board. The
competent field. The National Academy of Engineering, for example,have stated in their vision of “The Engineer of 2020” that engineering activities should beframed in the context of rapidly moving technological changes, global interconnection ofresources, and an increasingly diverse and multidisciplinary population of individuals involvedin or affected by engineering developments. Among the NAE aspirations for the engineeringfield is “a future where engineers are prepared to adapt to changes in global forces and trendsand to ethically assist the world in creating a balance in the standard of living for developing anddeveloped countries alike”3. This vision reflects the need to embrace global competencies framedwithin ethical considerations, where
ofEngineering (NAE) Engineer of 2020 report.47 In this paper, we focus only on the ABEToutcomes, which were listed on the survey as shown in Table 2. Page 26.371.8Table 2. ABET Criterion a-k outcomesMath a Ethics c aScience CommunicationPlanning/conducting experiments b Global/societal context d bAnalytical skills Environmental context dDesign Economic issues dTeamwork
Page 26.679.2within realistic constraints such aseconomic, environmental, social, political,ethical, health and safety,manufacturability, and sustainability(e) an ability to identify, formulate, and solve (f) an understanding of professional andengineering problems ethical responsibility(g) an ability to communicate effectively (h) the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global,economic, environmental, and societal context (i) a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning(j
Paper ID #12357Communication Class Size and Professional IdentityDr. Corey Owen, University of Saskatchewan Corey Owen received his PhD in English from Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada in 2007. Since then, he has been teaching in the Ron and Jane Graham School of Professional Development in the University of Saskatchewan’s College of Engineering. His research focuses on issues of rhetoric, identity, and learning theory, as well as medieval ethics and literature.Prof. Debora Rolfes, University of Saskatchewan Debora Rolfes is an assistant professor in the Ron and Jane Graham School of Professional
first four versions of the taxonomy and all instances of epistemology ineach respective version. In the versions of the taxonomy in which epistemology does appear, itappears under different categories and with different sub-categories of its own. In version 1 itwas listed as a component of part of the engineering curriculum dedicated to social, political and Page 26.1630.5organizational studies along with topics like ethics. In version 2 it appears in 3 places, as a category under research methodologies and as two components of developmental theory (whichis a category under theoretical frameworks), epistemology and personal epistemology
relevance is through a study of theEngineering Grand Challenges19. Students are challenged to think critically as they proposedesigns to address some aspect of one of the challenges and then explore ethical implications oftheir proposed designs. Although the logistic regression model was less successful in predictingwho changed majors out of engineering (the model only accurately predicted fewer than 15% ofthose cases), this is somewhat consistent with prior research that showed predicting whoachieves academically is more straightforward than predicting who underachieves20. In otherwords, there is often more variability underlying reasons for underachievement, and the same islikely true for students who change majors out of engineering to choose
. Page 26.1716.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015IntroductionHow to Understand Engineering Life PathwaysEngineering is increasingly understood as a lifelong learning pathway rather than an event thathappens only in a university setting. The National Academy of Engineering’s the Engineer of2020 identifies lifelong learning, practical ingenuity, analytic skills, business management,creativity, cognitive flexibility, ethics, leadership, professionalism, and communication as theknowledge and skills that will be valuable for engineers in the future. These skills can be learnedboth within, and outside of, traditional engineering education. In order to understand howengineering education manifests during
statement, futureworkshop offerings may consider other research methods that allow for the expression of ones’self in other forms, such as photo collections or elicitation, and multimedia presentations. Future Page 26.742.10work may also consider the applications of a student’s sense of self to other interdisciplinaryareas and engineering domains such as ethical behaviour, teamwork and collaboration,leadership, creativity, and problem solving.One opportunity for this research may be to partner with academic support units, faculties, anddepartments across campus, such as career services, student affairs, learning commons, exchangeand experiential
(MATH) Professional Skills (PROF) ENGR Tech/Tools (ESTT) I. Critical Thinking I. Engineering Skills I. Trig Review A. Electromagnetic Systems II. Calculus A. Problem Solving (DESN III.0.0) B. Circuits III. Significant Figures II. Ethics C. Statics IV. Units and Dimensions B
content is drawn from material that wouldnormally be presented in that course anyway – and the mode of presentation will thus depend onthe instructor’s preference. Importantly, this material can be presented with minimal directreference to the GC (in this stage).Stage 5: Application of Course Content to the Challenge. The key connection between the GCmaterial (Stages 1-3) and the technical material (Stage 4) comes as the students complete aproblem-solving exercise. Most such exercises will involve hands-on analysis or simulation ofdata relevant to the GC, followed by reflection on ethical or practical issues raised by the data.For example, the students might be given data related to water quality measures from onelocation, analyze that data to
sustain a PLC Building and sustaining a PLC Definition/Explanation 1. Teaching is a personal choice Teaching poorly was understood as being incompatible to and commitment. achieving a long academic career. However, the autonomy built into the job provides the flexibility to decide just how good a teacher to become. 2. Work ethic as core to teaching No academic in a research university expects to advance professionally as researchers by working normal 40-hour work weeks. A commitment to both research and teaching
. 12. Samuel Messick, "Meaning and values in test validation: The science and ethics of assessment," Educational researcher 18, no. 2 (1989): 5-11. 13. James W. Pellegrino, Louis DiBello, Ronald Miller, Ruth Streveler, Natalie Jorion, Katie James, Lianne Schroeder, and William Stout, “An analytical framework for investigating concept inventories,” In J. Pellegrino (Chair), The Conceptual Underpinnings of Concept Inventories. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. (2013). 14. Susan Singer, Natalie R. Nielsen, and Heidi A. Schweingruber, eds., Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science
methods to improve teaching, studying faculty motivation to change classroom practices, and exploring ethical decision-making in engineering students. She also has established a national presence in engineer- ing education; she is a fellow in the American Society of Engineering Education, is an Associate Editor of the IEEE Transactions on Education, and past chair of the Educational Research and Methods Division of ASEE.Mr. Prateek Shekhar, University of Texas, Austin Prateek Shekhar is a PhD student in the Department of Mechanical Education at the University of Texas at Austin. His research is focused in understanding students’ and faculty’s reaction to adoption of active learning based teaching methods in engineering