accreditation reinforces skills such asproblem-solving, it can be quite challenging to fully incorporate the macro-ethical socialdimensions of sustainable development3,5,6. In this study, we focus on the challenge ofintegrating macro-ethical socio-technical thinking skills through stakeholder value mapping20,21,22 . This challenge is not unique to courses focused on sustainability. The challenge of integratingmacro-ethical socio-technical thinking is common to all engineering curriculum23,24,25. Previouswork on the integration of macro-ethical issues into engineering courses have fallen into twobroad categories: 1) understanding institutional patterns of macro-ethical interventions inengineering curriculum26,27,28 and more fine-grained qualitative
methods and design thinking are being promoted and increasinglyadopted beyond the traditional creative design disciplines. These approaches are touted as toolsfor enhanced creativity that help align narrow problem solving in any domain with actual humancapabilities and experiences—and hence the broader human condition [1]. Engineeringeducation, in particular, has been impacted by the rise in use of human-centered design problem-solving and educational approaches, largely for the better. Design-centric pedagogies can enableheightened student engagement [2], better contextualized problem solving [3], a broader range ofinquiry methods employed to understand the problem and posit solution concepts [4], andincreased emphasis on experimentation
were identified using qualitative data analysis. They were broadly organized for this paperinto dominant themes that included a) interviewees’ characterizations of “the public,” b)experiences that shaped interviewees’ views of “the public,” c) interviewees’ understandingsabout their role in society, d) interviewees’ understandings about the role of “the public” inengineering decision making, and e) interviewees’ perceptions of risks and benefits associatedwith interacting with “the public.”IntroductionAt the forefront of the engineering code of ethics is the mandate to “hold paramount the safety,health and welfare of the public”1. The National Academy of Engineering (NAE) refers toengineers as “a key force in the improvement of our economic
substantive writinginstruction improvements in our College of Engineering. In this paper, we document our findingsand propose a path to improving writing instruction for undergraduate engineering students,beginning with educating our engineering faculty about best practices and helping themimplement those practices in their classes.I. IntroductionThe ability of engineers to express ideas effectively and persuasively, in both written and oralcommunications, is a critical competency that has been emphasized by both the NationalAcademy of Engineering [1] and ABET [2]. In addition to its importance in communication,writing can also be used to improve critical thinking. Substantial scholarship exists on the valueof writing-to-learn in the physical
becameobjects around which we fine-tuned the selection of segments and generated analytical memos.In our analysis, we worked through the selected transcript portions line by line to code for howwomen and Target were being constructed. Proximity of constructions and logical dependency inthe reasoning were used as evidence to argue for how the constructions of different stakeholdersare entangled. Interpretations in the analytical memos were iteratively revised several timesthrough group discussions (Engle, Conant, and Greeno, 2007). Roughly, in this process, we hadthe following orientations: (1) we assumed context-dependence, in that we expected thatconstructions of stakeholders could change swiftly, (2) we attended to how multiple
engineering professional identity.IntroductionThe increasing demands for a 21st century postsecondary education-- that incorporates theliberal arts, humanities, and social sciences--in contrast to the stasis of engineeringcurriculum, has catalyzed an engineering education “identity crisis” [1]-[9]. Without anunderstanding of the engineering norms, practices, and worldviews that engineering studentsand instructors carry from their courses, there is an increased risk that underrepresentation inengineering continues.This work in progress paper aims to expand a previously developed study on engineeringprofessional identity by exploring two unique engineering courses (serving as case studies) ata college of engineering at a western institution in the U.S
’ experiences working in the service-learning context shapes how they view themselvesas engineers contributing to the greater good. These teams are an ideal site to explore the micro-level processes, and we explore them by putting forward TSR as a way of understanding howsocial responsibility is enacted at multiple levels of organizing—thus filling a particular gap insocial responsibility research, while focused within the context of engineering education.In this study, we are particularly interested in the communicative and social team processesrelated to responsibility as part of human-centered design (HCD) approaches in which designersfocus on users to construct their products and services [1]. We argue that TSR considerationsoperate in the present
. The principle categories weredefense, religion, infrastructure, government, and daily life. These categories andexamples of some of the artifacts examined in this course for each category are shown onTable 1. Table 1 Artifacts of the Built Environment Purpose Representative Artifacts of the Built Environment Defense Roman Walls, Iron Age Hill Forts, Norman and Tudor Castles Religion Stonehenge, Avebury stone circle, Temple of Mithras, Cathedrals (e.g. Salisbury, St. Paul’s), Minsters (e.g. Westminster) Infrastructure Roads, bridges, water supply, waste management Government Tower of London, Roman Basilica and Forum, Buckingham Palace
integrating ESIinto engineering education to foster a sense of ethical awareness and responsibility in students.IntroductionThe new ABET student outcomes put additional impetus on teaching ethics by requiring thatstudents attain “an ability to recognize ethical and professional responsibilities in engineeringsituations and make informed judgments, which must consider the impact of engineeringsolutions in global, economic, environmental, and societal contexts” (outcome 4) [1]. Theoutcome mandates a higher level of learning than “an understanding of professional and ethicalresponsibility” (outcome f) [2]. The new criteria demand that programs demonstrate that theirstudents are able to recognize their responsibilities and make sound choices, higher
recent years, there has been a call for education initiatives targeted to refugee camps.In 2017, Purdue University and the University of Geneva implemented an engineering coursethat responded to these concerns by empowering learners to not only address challenges in theircommunities but also develop engineering thinking. The pedagogical core of this course wasgrounded in the principles of a democratic learning space. The purpose of this work-in-progressis to describe our approach and illustrate artifacts from the pilot course. In doing so, we addressthree key objectives: 1. What aspects of the introductory engineering course (intended outcomes, assessments, and activities) were contextually aligned to opportunities and constraints in the
Empathy in Engineering EducationAbstractIn philosophy and psychology literature, empathy in general refers to 1) the ability tounderstand another person’s ideas and feelings; and 2) the inclination to feel emotionallyresponsive to, and act to alleviate, another person’s distressful experience. Until recently,however, discourses on “empathy” in engineering education are inspired primarily by“empathic design,” a concept that originated from market research and first gainedpopularity in the business world. This paper argues that the discourse of “empathic design”inadvertently advances an instrumentalist interpretation of empathy, one that ignores thedepth and breadth of philosophical and psychological insights into empathy. Theadoption of this
[nameofinstitution redacted]asawhole? Frequenc Valid Cumulative y Percent Percent Percent Valid Neitherunwelcoming 1 7.1 7.1 7.1 norwelcoming(3) Somewhatwelcoming 4 28.6 28.6 35.7 (4) Fullywelcoming(5) 9 64.3 64.3 100.0 Total 14 100.0 100.0 DescriptiveStatistics Minimu Maximu Std. N
findings of the single case study couldtransfer to other engineering program related contexts. Finally, the study steps beyondengineering programs to examine emerging andragogical literature. This literature surveyprovides engineering educators a glimpse into the next evolution of how an andragogicalapproach to undergraduate learners may be applied to the engineering education enterprise andaccommodate more than just older, more experienced learners. Introduction In a recent workshop on engineering education, the National Academy of Engineering(NAE) President defined engineers as people who “create solutions serving the welfare ofhumanity and the needs of society”[1, pg. 10]. The report also goes on to say that engineers needto be
industry. Many universities across the countryhave implemented active learning classes because there is ample evidence that they stimulatelong-term material retention, critical thinking, and communication skills [1-3]. Unfortunately,these positive attributes may also mask a hidden problem. Past research has shown that certainaspects of team dynamics, particularly student roles on teams and peer interactions withteammates, can leave women unsure of their engineering abilities [4-8]. These findings areconcerning not only for the retention of women in engineering, but also for the success of activelearning programs as a whole. The mission of active learning is to prepare students for workingwith diverse groups of people in a respectful, professional
faculty on developing face-to-face, hybrid, and online courses. Janie also coordinates and provides training and support for the campus Learning Management System, Moodle, and Multimedia System, Panopto. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Beyond Drag and Drop: Balancing Experience and Innovation in Online Technical Communication Course DevelopmentOnline learning is increasingly part of students’ higher education experience. Recent reports,including the New Media Consortium Horizon Report [1] and The Babson Survey of OnlineLearning [2] report an increase in hybrid, online, and multimedia learning. Redesigning coursesfor these new environments gives faculty members opportunities to
power. Stories, great flapping ribbons of shaped space-time, have been blowing and uncoiling around the universe since the beginning of time. And they have evolved. The weakest have died and the strongest have survived and they have grown fat on the retelling…stories, twisting and blowing through the darkness. [1]Stories have been an important part of how humans remember their past and hope for a brightfuture since long before we created written language. Telling our lived stories and listening toothers’ stories are part of how we make sense of our lives and build our communities. It is nowonder that stories hold us in such thrall and have power in our relationships and organizations.Both listening to and telling stories
operating procedures may remedysome of the deficiencies, while researchers, participants, and institutions should continue tocritically evaluate the impacts and outcomes of their work.IntroductionDrawing on research from a four-year, National Science Foundation-funded project, this paperexplores specific opportunities for and challenges of incorporating Engineers Without BordersUSA (EWB) projects into the undergraduate engineering experience. A recent National Academyof Engineering report identified challenges with incorporating ethics into undergraduateengineering education and noted the relatively persistent feeling that technical and non-technicalskills are separate, with the technical skills being more highly valued [1]. Participation in
scientists andengineers, to apply bits of it they find appealing to their own teaching.Our understanding of rhetorical situations and how to analyze them is underpinned by therhetorical triangle, derived from the work of Lloyd Bitzer [1].We share the triangle graphic shown above (usually just sketched on the board), explaining thatevery communication situation (whether a lab report or a memo or progress report or journalarticle) shares these elements: there is one or more speakers or writers, talking to one or moreparticular audiences, about a given topic, in a genre, and against a wider context. Genres, in thismodern sense, refer to recurring types of communication with certain conventions, such as thosenamed in the list above (“lab report
personal sense of social responsibility and engineeringcurriculums. By answering these questions, we seek a deeper understanding of how students canform meaningful connections with engineering and become more inclined to stay in the program.Data will be presented in the form of pre- and post-surveys from the students regarding thecourse and engineering overall and the students’ impressions of the Ethics lectures.IntroductionMany professional engineers agree that the most rewarding aspects of their jobs are seeing theirideas come to life and having a direct effect on people’s everyday lives [1]. Students respondpositively to messages that promote these values of engineering, yet there are low retention ratesin engineering, due to students
significant amount of research has been conducted in these areas, targeting generalknowledge and skill development [1]–[5], team formation [6]–[8], team assessment [9]–[12],conflict management/team problems [13], the importance of campus culture and socialinteractions [14], and team diversity [15]–[18]. Yet many programs continue to struggle with thedelivery of strategic and progressive instruction that prepares graduates to engage consistently inproductive and inclusive teaming practice.ContextThe undergraduate programs administered in CBEE require extensive group and teamworkthroughout all four years of the curricula; however, instruction on effective and inclusivepractices is only occasional, and if present the outcomes are rarely assessed. To
usually framed as a problem ofrepresentation with solutions and interventions aimed at increasing the numbers ofunderrepresented groups. Historically, and in the present moment, the field of engineering hasnot been the most diverse in terms of race and gender. As of 2014, only 19.8% of all engineeringundergraduate students in the United States identified as female, down 0.7% from 2004 [1].Compared to this percentage, the University of Virginia’s engineering school had a 31% femaleundergraduate enrollment in 2017 [2]. Yet, nationally females represent greater than 50% of allcollege students. Recent efforts have initiated means to strengthen an atmosphere of inclusion,but there is more work to be done to bridge the identified gaps.Reasons for the
students understand diversity and inclusion within theirengineering programs, and how these understandings are shaped by aspects of the environmentin which they are situated.Our study is a component of a broader research project that is examining the seeminglyintractable problems of diversity and inclusion that emerge through the converging threads offormation of professional identity and culture of engineering disciplines. In this study we utilizeda qualitative analysis of interview data to explore the undergraduate students’ perceptions ofdiversity and inclusion within the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) atPurdue University [1]. Our interview draws upon cultural dimensions of engineering disciplinesthat encourage student to
greater than what is currently required by accreditingbodies and addressed in most engineering curriculum.IntroductionAcademic programs for students seeking careers in fields with strong discipline-basedknowledge requirements traditionally focus heavily on technical expertise. “Engineers have beenvalued for their technical expertise for centuries. This expertise has often distinguishedengineers' role as civil servants who design and create goods, infrastructure, and processes forthe needs of humanity” [1]. But employers are making a new set of demands on the workers theyhire; they are seeking competency in both technical and professional skills. The need for technical employees to possess professional skills has been discussed overthe
experience of teaching it for the first time during the 2017-2018 academic year, and plans for the future.IntroductionIn 1997, ABET rolled out the Engineering Criteria 2000 (EC2000), which introduced for the firsttime an understanding of social context as a requirement for engineering education. This is anacknowledgement that engineering practice does not occur in a vacuum, but must be responsiveto the various economic, political, and cultural forces around it. In the years since EC2000,many engineering programs have struggled to meet this criteria in a meaningful way [1]. Thereasons are primarily two-fold. First, the addition of so-called “soft skills” into the curriculum inno way reduces the amount of technical content that is also necessary to
. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Refining Concept Maps as a Method to Assess Learning Outcomes among Engineering Students1.0 Introduction Concept mapping activities have been used extensively in over 500 educational researchprojects with the goal of developing curricula, assessment, and testing knowledge acquisition [1].This suite of methods, many shared among ASEE members, are proven to perform in a variety ofsettings and learning communities. Concept maps (CMs) are most often used to link courselearning goals to individual student’s knowledge integration of course material, especially wherethere are defined concepts and linkages between concepts that should be replicable by
an unquestioned assumption that certain ways of knowing -- explicitly dominantepistemologies that involve specific mathematical procedures and scientific processes -- arerace-, gender-, and culture-free. In reality, education inherently prioritizes and privileges certainbodies of knowledge while marginalizing and excluding others. Within engineering, colonial,White, heterosexual, and male knowledge has historically been privileged over other ways ofknowing. Little recognition appears to exist that the ethnocentricity and masculinity of theengineering curricula affects problem definition and accepted methods of problem solving,teaching, and assessment [1]. This dominant approach undervalues and ignores the livedrealities, perspectives, and
PhD in Civil Engineering from Clemson University in South Carolina, and her BS in Engineering from Harvey Mudd College.Dr. Odesma Onika Dalrymple, University of San Diego Dr. Odesma Dalrymple is an Assistant Professor in the Shiley Marcos School of Engineering at University of San Diego. She conducts research on tools and techniques that can be readily applied in real engineer- ing learning environments to improve student learning and teaching. In this respect her two prominent research contributions are with: 1) artefact-inspired discovery–based pedagogy, i.e., learning activities where students’ exploration of STEM knowledge is self-directed and motivated by interactions or manip- ulations of artefacts; and 2
that gradesmust represent something meaningful to students if grades are to be satisfying extrinsicmotivators. We conclude by providing practical ideas for educators that are suggested by ourdata.IntroductionAn engineer’s professional duties typically demand a substantial amount of technical writing [1],[2], and writing plays a role in hire, promotion, and long-term success [3]–[5]. In both industryand academia, writing provides an engineer access to his or her discourse community [6].While employers, educators, and ABET agree that today’s engineer needs to write well, oftenundergraduate students don’t seem to be on the same page. Engineering students are reported tobe resistant to writing and technical communication education, demotivated by
study of teaching and learning as socially,culturally, and historically situated phenomena (Penuel & O’Connor, 2010). We focus inparticular on implications of a curricular innovation directed towards an institution’s goal tobroaden engineering participation and promote success for all students, regardless of incomingmathematics preparation levels, within a selective undergraduate engineering program.The Wright State Model is a semester-long math course that teaches fundamental concepts ofCalculus 1, 2, and 3, and Differential Equations in an engineering context through hands-onlaboratory experiences and application-rich problems. The WSM is designed to disrupt thetraditional rigid sequencing of undergraduate engineering curricula by de