program, continuing education, experience,and mentoring: material sciences, mechanics, experiments, problem recognition and solving,design, sustainability, contemporary issues and historical perspective, risk and uncertainty,project management, breadth in civil engineering, and technical specialization.(C) Professional outcomes achieved through the degree program, experience and mentoring:communications, public policy, business and public administration, globalization, leadership,teamwork, attitudes, and professional and ethical responsibility.Detailed commentaries on these outcomes, along with their rubrics in the cognitive domain andthe desired level of achievement can be found in the report published by the BOK2 TaskCommittee [1]The BOK3TC
Paper ID #22414From ’Empathic Design’ to ’Empathic Engineering’: Toward a Genealogy ofEmpathy in Engineering EducationDr. Xiaofeng Tang, Ohio State University Xiaofeng Tang is an Assistant Professor of Practice in the Department of Engineering Education at the Ohio State University. He worked as a postdoctoral fellow in engineering ethics at Penn State University. He received his Ph.D. in Science and Technology Studies from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 From “Empathic Design” to “Empathic Engineering”: Toward a Genealogy of
engineer and project manager on projects throughout the United States. He is a licensed professional engineer in multiple states. Dr. Barry’s areas of research include assessment of professional ethics, teaching and learning in engineering education, nonverbal communication in the classroom, and learning through historical engineering accomplishments. He has authored and co-authored a significant number of journal articles and book chapters on these topics. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018Revising the Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge (BOK): The Application of the Cognitive Domain of Bloom’s TaxonomyAbstractIn October, 2016, The American Society of Civil Engineers
engineering (b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data (c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability (d) an ability to function on multidisciplinary teams (e) an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems (f) an understanding of professional and 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
pursued byengineers to gain visibility, achieve relevance, and influence the public. The profession ofnursing offers three advantages as compared to the profession of engineering in terms ofeffective public engagement, including: 1) trust (i.e., Gallop shows nursing as the “most trusted”profession for 15 years running); 2) gender bias (i.e., the profession of nursing is primarilycomposed of females, which the engineering profession claims is an important target audiencefor marketing efforts); and 3) professionalism (i.e., the canons of ethics for nurses emphasize theimportance of the patient – and hence the value of the individual – while the canon of ethics forengineers emphasize the importance of the nameless “public” – and hence looses the
number and type of design criteria comprising the rubric. The completed rubric willprovide engineering educators and students with a learning and assessment tool to enhancesustainable design outcomes of projects.IntroductionDuring the 2016 ASEE Annual Conference, a special session posed a question about howengineering educators can assess “difficult to measure” learning outcomes like sustainability,ethics, entrepreneurship, etc. Panelists presented numerous examples of assessment tools andmethods that could be used to benchmark and measure learning gains in each difficult area. Afollow-up systematic literature review focused on “sustainability assessments” in ASEEproceedings identified twenty-nine recent publications describing various tools and
Engineering Endorsement Responsibility Matrix. The Delphiparticipants reviewed the taxonometric structure and identified and prioritized the core conceptsand sub concepts for each content area to serve as the foundation for the knowledge dimension ofengineering literacy. Participants were organized into four focus groups, one for each Fundamental ContentArea: Quantitative Analysis, Engineering Design, Ethics and Society, and Materials Processingand then each Technical Content Area: Mechanical, Electrical, Chemical, Civil. Each focusgroup was comprised of at least one high school teacher and one engineer or engineeringeducator. Participants were asked to revise the core and sub concepts for each content area as agroup based on the following
in their own section(s) anddivide the classes up into student groups of 4-5 students. Our instructional team consistscompletely of teaching professionals (non-tenure track faculty) with a variety of backgroundsand industry experience. In order to make mentoring 10 to 20 teams tractable, all students teamscomplete the same design challenge. Creating a “good” design challenge is crucial, as the coursedoes more than simply teach the design process (see Figure 1). Teaming and leadership skills,project management, ethics, and technical communication are important outcomes for the course.All of these “Soft-skill” areas are made more palatable to our students if our design challenge isengaging and fun.With eleven different engineering disciplines
Professional Practices in Engineering and Engineering in the Humanistic Context which are courses focused on exploring a wide range of leadership, management & ethical issues confronting engineers and engineering students on a day-to-day basis. Prof. Falcone is a registered professional engineer, a diplomat in the American Academy of Water Resources Engineers, a retired Captain of the U.S. Navy, a former William C. Foster fellow at the U.S. Department of State and a consultant for the U.S. Department of State in the field of International Arms Control. In 2017, he was awarded the EDUCATOR OF THE YEAR Award from the American Society of Civil Engineers, Philadelphia Section.Dr. Andrea L. Welker, Villanova University Dr
spreadthroughout the semester and weekly lectures which focused for five weeks on areas ofbiomedical engineering with the remaining lectures being divided between professionalism,ethics, and curriculum information. A final design project was included but it was entirelytheoretical with minimal instruction provided on the design process. The 2016 class included 51students who attending lecture together but were divided across 3 sections for workshops.In the fall of 2017, the course was restructured. The lectures were mostly recreated to focus on asemester-long design project, but a handful were maintained to cover professionalism, ethics,and curriculum information. Students attended weekly two-hour workshops instead of 3 persemester which were used to
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He received his B.S. in Computer Engineering from Sharif University of Technology in 2008 and his M.B.A. from University of Tehran in 2011. He has presented his research in past years at multiple conferences including American Evaluation Association, International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry, and Academy of Human Resource Development. In His dissertation, he focused on ethical decision making processes among computer majors. His research interests include ethics educa- tion, computer ethics, talent development, online learning, and evaluation. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018
Paper ID #21686Environmental Considerations in Engineering: Students’ Goals and JourneysDr. Angela R. Bielefeldt, University of Colorado, Boulder Angela Bielefeldt is a professor at the University of Colorado Boulder in the Department of Civil, En- vironmental, and Architectural Engineering (CEAE). She is a licensed PE and has served as the ABET assessment coordinator in her department since 2008. Professor Bielefeldt’s research interests in en- gineering education include service-learning, sustainable engineering, social responsibility, ethics, and diversity.Dr. Greg Rulifson P.E., Colorado School of Mines Greg
engineering education.Dr. Qin Zhu, Colorado School of Mines Qin Zhu is Research Assistant Professor in the Ethics Across Campus Program and the Division of Hu- manities, Arts & Social Sciences at Colorado School of Mines, where he is also helping with managing the Daniels Fund Faculty Fellows Program that provides scholarly and grant support for faculty to explore ways to integrate ethics into their applied science and engineering curricula. Qin is also completing his second PhD degree in the School of Engineering Education at Purdue University. Qin holds a bachelor’s degree in Materials Engineering and a PhD in Philosophy (concentration in Ethics of Technology and Engineering) from Dalian University of Technology (DUT
distinction between technical and professional is often blurred.Initially the committee attempted to classify all 21 proposed outcomes using both the cognitiveand affective domains. However, it proved difficult to distinguish the difference betweenTable 4. Example of Actions Demonstrating Affective Attainment. Level Example Receiving Individual reads a book passage and recognizes the relationship to ethical behavior. Responding Individual participates in a discussion about the book, reads another book by the same author or another book about ethical behavior, etc. Valuing The individual demonstrates this by voluntarily attending a
professional and ethical development activities. A course brick is a course structurewith ABET student outcomes embedded in it. In the second dimension, the communitycreation, students pursue a diverse set of opportunities unique to their personal interests andgoals such as clinical, research, and entrepreneurial experiences to be realized in partnershipwith other academic divisions including the medical school, business school, college ofveterinary medicine, college of design, or college of arts and sciences. In the third dimension,professional development, students assimilate a rich set of professional skills. The pedagogicaltheory behind the 3D Undergraduate Experience is competency-based learning (CBL). CBL isespecially effective in
-project so students can apply EM knowledge to a real(istic) scenario and the resulting consequences. Students focus on technical aspects and analyze social and technical consequences. • Redesign classroom assessment rubrics to incorporate engineering habits of mind. Include sections for systems thinking (technical aspects), innovation (design aspects), adaptations and improvements (iterative processes), socio-cultural and ethical considerations (social aspects), communication (understanding the problem and considering multiple perspectives), collaboration (teamwork and fostering new strategies), and finally sociotechnical integration (understanding emergent factors).The Projects course taught at
number and data structure (Big Idea #3: Data and Information) A simple tour in programming (Big Idea #4: Algorithms, Big Idea #5: Programming) Construct a simple website (Big Idea #1: Creativity) Computer hardware organization in a regular desktop computer (Big Idea #2: Abstraction) Different types of operating systems (Big Idea #2: Abstraction) Cutting-edge computing technologies such as Cloud Computing and Internet of Things (Big Idea #6: The Internet) Ethics in Computer Science (Big Idea #7: Global Impact)Our online course is divided into eight units. Each unit includes three theoretical sessions andone hands-on session. The course also includes four online discussion sessions. The four-weekonline course
easier to meet than the existingrequirements and present increased flexibility for many programs.Criterion 3 ChangesThe current Criterion 3 (a)-(k) student outcomes1 which have been unchanged since theywere adopted as part of EC2000 are:Student outcomes are outcomes (a) through (k) plus any additional outcomes that may bearticulated by the program.(a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering(b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data(c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs withinrealistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, healthand safety, manufacturability, and sustainability(d) an ability to
importance of traditionallearning pedagogies combined with experiential learning has been shown to increase overallcognitive competency [7] - [9]. To maintain relevancy and competitiveness in engineeringeducation, hands-on learning experiences with a global perspective needs to be integrated intothe curriculum [10], [11]. We believe critical skills such as empathizing, weighing ethicalconsiderations and effective communication are needed by graduates to navigate the 21st centuryglobal societal needs [12] - [17]. These learning opportunities could allow them to learn andpractice empathetical and ethical decision making with people from diverse backgrounds.Central to this capability is to provide the students with experiential learning opportunities
design and conduct experiments, as engineering, science, and mathematics well as to analyze, and interpret data 2) an ability to apply engineering design to producec) an ability to design a system, component, or process solutions that meet specified needs with to meet desired needs within realistic constraints consideration of public health, safety, and welfare, such as economic, environmental, social, political, as well as global, cultural, social, environmental, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and and economic factors sustainability 3) an ability to communicate effectively with a ranged) an ability to function on
project plan to monitor, control and report task status and completion • assess risk and develop a risk plan with mitigation strategies • create a process for requirements verification and validation • identify and perform tests and methods to evaluate a design to the original specifications • identify and evaluate design shortfalls and improve the design in terms of meeting specification including failure mode analysis • demonstrate effective written and oral communications in project documentation and presentations • demonstrate an understanding of and a commitment to professional and ethical responsibilities, including a respect for diversity • demonstrate an understand of the impact of engineering
ofengineering. In other words, philosophy of engineering is a reflection on the practice ofengineering which through explanatory efforts and critical descriptions provides feedback into thepractice again. Figure 1 represents this reciprocal relationship graphically.On Epistemic Diversity of EngineeringAlthough mathematical and natural sciences are widely known as major constituents ofengineering knowledge, it is not conceivable to overlook the humanistic aspects of engineering,for example, sociological, ethical, aesthetic and economical issues embedded in engineeringproblems. In recent years, a model for holistic engineering 9 has been established andconsiderable research has been done on the pedagogy of holistic engineering 10 . One of theachievements
argue that culturalresponsiveness, as well as a commitment to research that actively benefits marginalizedcommunities, are two core components of quality in qualitative research that were not originallyidentified by Walther et al.In the remainder of this paper, we use their six validation types—theoretical validation,procedural validation, communicative validation, pragmatic validation, ethical validation, andprocess reliability—as an organizational framework. Under each validation type, we describehow researchers can maintain cultural responsiveness during three phases: the conceptualizationphase, the data generation phase, and the data handling phase. To identify additional validationstrategies beyond Walther et al.’s framework, we conducted
advocating ashift from a sole focus on student outcomes, we call attention to outcomes 4 and 5, which reflectsystem-level abilities, “An ability to recognize ethical and professional responsibilities inengineering situations and make informed judgments, which must consider the impact ofengineering solutions in global, economic, environmental, and societal contexts; An ability tofunction effectively on a team whose members together provide leadership, create a collaborativeand inclusive environment, establish goals, plan tasks, and meet objectives.” Transdisciplinarylearning mirrors an authentic setting of “real world” engineering practice.Table 1. New Accreditation Board on Engineering and Technology (ABET) student outcomes. An ability
Paper ID #21160Perceptions of the Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge Outcomes by SeniorStudents: Effect of Activities, Internships, and Career GoalsDr. Angela R. Bielefeldt, University of Colorado, Boulder Angela Bielefeldt is a professor at the University of Colorado Boulder in the Department of Civil, Envi- ronmental, and Architectural Engineering (CEAE). She serves as the ABET assessment coordinator for her department. Bielefeldt is also a licensed P.E. Professor Bielefeldt’s research interests in engineering education include service-learning, sustainable engineering, social responsibility, ethics, and diversity
engineering/professional identity abound. Some of these include: The attitudes, beliefs and standards which support the practitioner role and the development of an identity as a member of the profession with a clear understanding of the responsibilities of being a professional [1]. How closely an individual relates to a particular field, profession, or occupation [6]. The relatively stable and enduring constellation of attributes, beliefs, values, motives and experiences in terms of which people define themselves in a professional role [7]. To serve the public with specialized knowledge and skills through commitment to the field’s public purposes and ethical standards’ [8].These definitions include
toengineering technology problems that require limited application of principles but extensivepractical knowledgec) an ability to conduct standard tests and measurements; to conduct, analyze, and interpretexperimentsd) an ability to function effectively as a member of a technical teame) an ability to identify, analyze, and solve narrowly defined engineering technology problems;f) an ability to apply written, oral, and graphical communication in both technical andnontechnical environments; and an ability to identify and use appropriate technical literatureg) an understanding of the need for and an ability to engage in self-directed continuingprofessional development;h) an understanding of and a commitment to address professional and ethical
) Project reports Final exam (k) Project reports questions. (l)* Final exam questions. (a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering (b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data (c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability (d) an ability to function on
Paper ID #21480Representations of ’The Public’ in Learning Through Service (LTS) Versus’Mainstream’ Engineering Foundational Professional DocumentsDr. Nathan E. Canney, Dr. Canney’s research focuses on engineering education, specifically the development of social responsi- bility in engineering students. Other areas of interest include ethics, service learning, and sustainability education. Dr. Canney received bachelors degrees in Civil Engineering and Mathematics from Seat- tle University, a masters in Civil Engineering from Stanford University with an emphasis on structural engineering, and a PhD in Civil Engineering
engineers, diversity and inclusion in engineering, human-centered design, engineering ethics, leadership, service-learning, and accessibility and assistive-technology.Dr. Andrew O. Brightman, Purdue University-Main Campus, West Lafayette (College of Engineering) Andrew O. Brightman serves as Assistant Head for Academic Affairs and Associate Professor of Engi- neering Practice in the Weldon School of Biomedical Engineering. His research background is in cellular biochemistry, tissue engineering, and engineering ethics. He is committed to developing effective ped- agogies for ethical reasoning and engineering design and for increasing the diversity and inclusion of engineering education.Mr. Sean Eddington, Purdue University