Paper ID #42491Applied Ethics via Encouraging Intuitive Reflection and Deliberate DiscourseLucas J. Wiese, Purdue University Lucas Wiese is a PhD student in Computer and Information Technology at Purdue University. He studies AI ethics education and workforce development and works in the Research on Computing in Engineering and Technology Education lab (ROCkETEd) and the Governance and Responsible AI Lab (GRAIL).Dr. Alejandra J. Magana, Purdue University Alejandra J. Magana, Ph.D., is the W.C. Furnas Professor in Enterprise Excellence in the Department of Computer and Information Technology and Professor of Engineering
EthicsIntroductionIt is well accepted by both engineering education practitioners and researchers that developingethical engineers is critical for preparing engineering students to meet the obligations ofprofessional practice upon entering the workforce. Yet despite changing society contexts, and inan era where active changes are being seen in post-secondary engineering students (e.g., Sottileet al., 2021; Sottile, Cruz, & McLain, 2022) engineering ethics education largely looks the sameas it did a generation ago. This paper re-examines the question of engineering ethics educationwith an eye towards evaluating how students and faculty respond to relatively modernengineering ethical situations.Literature ReviewA Case for Case StudiesAs Martin, Conlon, and
Paper ID #43356Working Towards GenAI Literacy: Assessing First-Year Engineering Students’Attitudes towards, Trust in, and Ethical Opinions of ChatGPTDr. Campbell R. Bego, University of Louisville Campbell Rightmyer Bego, PhD, PE, studies learning and retention in undergraduate engineering programs in the Department of Engineering Fundamentals at the University of Louisville’s Speed School of Engineering. She obtained a BS from Columbia University in Mechanical Engineering, a PE license in Mechanical Engineering from the state of New York, and an MS and PhD in Cognitive Science from the University of Louisville. Her current
students’understanding of ethical dilemmas in aerospace engineering. Macroethics is particularly relevantwithin the aerospace industry as engineers are often asked to grapple with multi-faceted issuessuch as sustainable aviation, space colonization, or the military industrial complex. Macroethicaleducation, the teaching of collective social responsibility within the engineering profession andsocietal decisions about technology, is traditionally left out of undergraduate engineeringcurricula. This lack of macroethics material leaves students underprepared to address the broaderimpacts of their discipline on society. Including macroethical content in the classroom helpsnovice engineers better understand the real implications of their work on humanity
ChatGPT evolving in the future andwhat impact do you think it will have on education? (3) What ethical considerations should beconsidered when using ChatGPT in an educational setting? and (4) Can ChatGPT promote criticalthinking and problem-solving skills in students? Why?The responses were coded using NVivo to examine the perceptions of engineering students usingChatGPT. A total of 269 responses were included in the analysis. The responses revealed diverseviewpoints on the future of ChatGPT in education, examining its potential impact on teaching andlearning. While advancements are anticipated, ethical concerns like privacy, academic integrityand equitable access surfaced as significant issues. Opinions on ChatGPT’s role in boosting
technologicaladvancements. Generative AI, with its unparalleled capabilities for creating new content, problem-solving, and driving innovation, offers untapped potential for educational reform. Its applicationin engineering education could fundamentally alter how students engage with complex concepts,fostering environments that are more interactive, personalized, and conducive to deeper learning[8-10].However, the path to integrating generative AI into engineering curricula is fraught withchallenges. Ethical considerations, the quality and bias of AI-generated content, and thepreparedness of both educators and students to engage with this new paradigm are critical issuesthat must be addressed. This study, by focusing on the multifaceted aspects of generative AI’s
, ensuring a personalized match in research interests.The coordination team's efficacy is evident in the program's 100% placement rate last year,successfully pairing students with appropriate mentors and projects, reflecting a keenunderstanding of both student and faculty needs.A key aspect of the program is its dual focus on hands-on research and educational seminars.Students engage directly in real-world research under expert guidance, applying classroomtheories to practical scenarios, fostering innovation and inquiry. Concurrently, weekly seminarscover essential topics like research ethics, intellectual property rights, IRB and IACUCprotocols, and grant writing skills, and technology transfer.The program’s holistic structure develops not just
collectedin summer and fall 2023, and 323 responses were included in the analysis. Exploratory factoranalysis (EFA) revealed four factors learning tool, trustworthiness, ease of access and concernswith ChatGPT, and the dimension ‘ethical considerations’ was suggested to be removed after theEFA. The Cronbach’s alpha ranged between 0.62 to 0.82 suggesting good internal consistencyreliability between the items.Keywords: ChatGPT, concerns with ChatGPT, ease of access, ethical considerations, learningtool, trustworthinessIntroductionChat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) is a language model created by engineersworking in Open Artificial Intelligence (OpenAI). It is a type of artificial intelligence (AI) systemthat generates human-like text
higher self-efficacy in using ChatGPT as a learning tool in comparison with othergender identities. Furthermore, Freshmen engineering students tend to have high perceptions onusing ChatGPT as a learning tool, while junior engineering students have the lowest. Finally,freshmen engineering students tend to have high perceptions on ease of accessing ChatGPT, whilesophomore engineering students have the lowest.Keywords: ChatGPT, concerns with ChatGPT, ethical considerationsIntroductionEngineers working in Open Artificial Intelligence (OpenAI) developed the language model ChatGenerative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT). It's a kind of artificial intelligence (AI) systemthat can produce text responses to a variety of questions and prompts that seem
teaching and learning, and how artificial intelligence can be used in education in a creative and ethical way.Dr. Jorge Baier, Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica de Chile He is an associate professor in the Computer Science Department and Associate Dean for Engineering ˜ Education at the Engineering School in Pontificia Universidad CatA³lica de Chile. Jorge holds a PhD in Computer Science from the University of Toronto in CaMart´ın Eduardo Castillo, Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica de Chile Mart´ın Castillo is currently pursuing a Bachelor of Science in Robotics Engineering at the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile. His interests lie in the
ChatGPT, posing a potential threat to theequilibrium of academic integrity. The adaptive strategies employed by institutions in responseto GenAI are also discussed in this paper, and we have explored whether instructors restrictstudents’ access using sophisticated detection systems or simply advocate ethical and responsibleuse of GenAI. The potential consequences of these policies on students’ learning were alsoexplored with an emphasis on whether students feel unfairly disadvantaged when detectionsystems fail or if they perceive the need to rely on GenAI tools to maintain academiccompetitiveness.Keywords: Engineering education, generative AI (GenAI), adaptive strategies, undergraduateBackgroundEngineering education is an ever-changing field that
, including working directly with a client andconsidering the ethical implications of their solutions. These correlations point to areas wherestudents may need additional help in design thinking.BACKGROUNDA purpose of engineering design education is to support students’ movement along the path frombeginning toward informed designers. However, the pathways that students progress along thispath are not straightforward. Often, students are introduced to engineering design as first-yearstudents and do not see a design-focused course again until much later in their education,sometimes not until a capstone design experience in their final year. Both first-year and final-yearengineering design courses have been studied in a variety of contexts (e.g. [1
artificial intelligence can be used in education in a creative and ethical way.Prof. Catalina Cortazar, Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica de Chile Catalina Cort´azar is a Faculty member in the engineering design area DILAB at the School of Engineering at Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica de Chile (PUC). Catalina holds a Ph.D. in Engineering Science with a focus on Engineering Education from PUC, an MFA in Design and Technology from Parsons The New School for Desing, an MA in Media Studies from The New School, and a bachelor’s degree in Civil Engineering, with a concentration in Structural Design.Dr. Jorge Baier, Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica de Chile He is an associate professor in the Computer Science Department
experience in thecontext of a broader cultural experience.Methodology and MethodsThis work was determined to be IRB exempt by Brandeis University’s IRB and followed ahuman subjects protection protocol (#23232R-E). Elements of this protocol were designed topromote research quality through the lens of ethical validation [16], described in this section. Weused the quality in qualitative research (Q3) framework to actively promote the validity andreliability of our work through making and handling of data [16], [17]. This work was part of alarger study on both variability and mathematical modeling in engineering student culture;below, we present an episode from this context to illustrate our ongoing consent procedure.Collaborative Autoethnography (CAE
that some skills were more commonly associated with specific activitysystems across different project teams, not for quantitative analysis. TABLE I PROFESSIONAL SKILLS PLACED IN THE ACTIVITY SYSTEM Category Professional Skill Community Networking (11), Teamwork (5), Interpersonal Communication (2), Communication, Cross-Cultural Skills, Public Speaking Objective Strategy (6), Creativity (5), Global Awareness (3), Problem Solving (3), Public Speaking (3), Teamwork (3), Written Communication (3), Interpersonal Communication (2), Critical Thinking, Cross-Cultural Skills, Ethics
within the industry.Literature ReviewProfessional competencies are essential for the success of engineers, influencing careerpersistence, employability, and early career experiences. Professional skills, as emphasized bythe Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) board [7], highlight thatteamwork on multi-disciplinary teams, comprehension of ethical responsibility, and effectivecommunication are some of the key professional skills that the engineering curriculum shouldintegrate. In other words, the engineering curriculum should meet the goals of cultivating holisticskills that are beyond the foundational technical knowledge.In the context of successful engineering practice, a list of 38 competencies has been identified
can plan my office hour effectively’, ‘I can create instruments forevaluating group performance in a collaborative activity’, ‘I understand in what situationsimplementing a group activity is more effective than implementing an individual activity’, etc. Atotal of six factors emerged from the EFA, however, the scale ‘Harnessing the Power ofTechnology’ did not make it to final factors and a new factor was suggested ‘Ethical Practices’.The factor loadings of the final factor structure are shown in Table 4. The factor loadings for thefirst factor (F1) ranged from 0.56 to 0.8, second factor (F2) from 0.58 to 0.77, third factor (F3)from 0.54 to 0.84, fourth factor (F4) from 0.54 to 0.78, fifth factor (F5) from 0.42 to 0.81, andsixth factor (F6
, andthe environment is also vitally important. There is increasing recognition among engineers,educators, and industry leaders of the importance of preparing engineers to account for thesesociocultural dimensions [1]-[4]. We use the term “sociotechnical dimensions” or “practices” torefer to social or contextual factors such as ethics, engagement with stakeholders, and therecognition of power and identity and their role in engineering broadly. Environmental factorssuch as sustainability and the potential future impacts of engineering work are also categorizedas sociotechnical dimensions as they draw attention to possible consequences to the naturalenvironment. A call for broader engineering skills is reflected in the Accreditation Board
-prepared to enter the professional practice ofengineering [15]. Being effective at design thinking may lead to outcomes such as the capacity forinnovative problem-solving [16], the capability to convert ideas to practical real-lifesolutions/applications [17], effective teamwork [18], leveraging uncertainties [19], developing asense of responsibility and ethical decision-making [20]. All these characteristics are highlydesirable in the engineering job market.2. PURPOSEAs evidenced by the above discussion, spatial ability, and design thinking have independently beenthe subject of a significant number of research studies. Still, there is a scarcity of research thatexplores the relationship between spatial ability and design thinking. Only a handful
survey responses. We offeredguidance on designing data collection practices to meet IRB ethical requirements for research.We hope these ideas can make it easier for engineering educators to study undergraduate researchas a formative moment of socialization into engineering, whether as researchers or asprofessionals. REFERENCES[1] J. Lave and E. Wenger, Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.[2] H. M. Collins, Tacit and Explicit Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010.[3] J. Frechtling, “The 2010 User-Friendly Handbook for Project Evaluation,” National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA, 2010.[4] Lopatto, “Survey of Undergraduate Research Experiences (SURE
experiences, we can contribute our perspective and add insights intohow engineering education graduate student researchers come to be.Reference[1] F. Goodyear-Smith, C. Jackson, and T. Greenhalgh, "Co-design and implementation research: challenges and solutions for ethics committees," BMC Med. Ethics, vol. 16, no. 78, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-015-0072-2.[2] C. Ellis, T. E. Adams, and A. P. Bochner, "Autoethnography: an overview," Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung, pp. 273-290, 2011.[3] R. Likely and C. Wright, "The Journey of Decolonization as a Scientist and Science Education Researcher," in Equity in STEM Education Research: Advocating for Equitable Attention. Cham: Springer International Publishing
Course,” presented at the 2022 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Aug. 2022. Accessed: Feb. 08, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://peer.asee.org/the-impact-of-role-play- gamification-on-a-freshman-level-engineering-project-course[20] D. D. Burkey, R. T. Cimino, M. F. Young, K. D. Dahm, and S. C. Streiner, “It’s All Relative: Examining Student Ethical Decision Making in a Narrative Game-Based Ethical Intervention,” in 2022 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), Uppsala, Sweden: IEEE, Oct. 2022, pp. 1–6. doi: 10.1109/FIE56618.2022.9962629.[21] M. Nino and M. A. Evans, “Fostering 21st-Century Skills in Constructivist Engineering Classrooms With Digital Game-Based Learning,” IEEE Rev. Iberoam. Tecnol. Aprendiz
. These efforts were approved by ouruniversity ethics board.Study DesignThe study design included three different types of course experience, spanning the followingdelivery modes: asynchronous online, synchronous online, and in-person. The instructor for all ofthese offerings and the design of the course were consistent across the full study. • Asynchronous online offerings (3 class sections) involved no synchronous interactions with the teaching team, aside from almost fully unused interaction with teaching team members during office hours (held via Zoom). • Synchronous online offerings (2 class sections) involved fully synchronous virtual labs (held via the gather.town platform) and office hours (held via Zoom
Cimino, New Jersey Institute of Technology Dr. Richard T. Cimino is a Senior Lecturer in the Otto H. York Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering at New Jersey Institute of Technology. His research interests include the intersection of engineering ethics and process safety, and broadening inclusion in engineering, with a focus on the LGBTQ+ community. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Initial validity evidence for a survey of skill and attitude development on engineering teamsAbstractThis research paper discusses an emerging project that 1) seeks to gather validity evidence for asurvey of engineering student teaming attitudes and skill
#6 / #10 (differentiating memorization from understanding), #9 / #125 Pseudonyms are used for privacy and ethical concerns.(metacognitive awareness), and #10 / #13 (course performance) reinforce the model’s role inpromoting an integrated learning experience. Specifically, the correlation between items #6 and #10in both pretest and posttest phases suggests that students’ self-perceived learning skills align withtheir ability to distinguish between rote memorization and genuine understanding—a central goalof the LHETM approach.The positive correlations between item pairs #6 / #13 ( = 0.579, p = 0.012) and #7 / #13 ( = 0.542,p = 0.020) in the pretest phase alone reveal an intriguing predictive relationship: students’ initialconfidence in
Be Unfair,” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 45, no. 8, pp. 1106–1120, Feb. 2020. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2020.1724875.[7] C. Flaherty, “Teaching Eval Shake-Up,” Inside Higher Ed, May 22, 2018. Available: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/05/22/most-institutions-say-they-value-teaching- how-they-assess-it-tells-different-story. [Accessed April 1, 2024].[8] R. J. Kreitzer and J. Sweet-Cushman, “Evaluating Student Evaluations of Teaching: A Review of Measurement and Equity Bias in SETs and Recommendations for Ethical Reform,” Journal of Academic Ethics, vol. 1–12, Feb. 2021. Available: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10805-021-09400-w.[9] M. J. D. Adams and P. D. Umbach, “Nonresponse
storming, norming,and performing, directly correlating with the research questions of the study. This process, fromopen coding to thematic structuring, allowed for an in-depth exploration of team dynamicswithin the REU program.3.4 Ethical and Trustworthiness ConsiderationsTo ensure the ethical integrity of the study, informed consent was obtained from all participants.The data was anonymized to protect the identity of the participants and stored securely on Box.To enhance the trustworthiness of the findings, an additional coder was enlisted to conductinitial coding and analysis and participate in peer debriefing and inter-rater reliability (IRR)analysis. The IRR analysis measured the degree of agreement among the coders in applying thecodes and
-structuredness. The integration of ethics is also an ill-structured aspect of the problem, especiallysince meeting the 20% weight reduction is a stretch goal, which the instructor is aware of but thestudents are not. In resolving ill-structured aspects present and emergent in the problem, studentsnecessarily participate in actions that constitute problem framing.Like the previous problem, resolving complexity is reflected in actions of decomposing the pedal-crank system into individual components that can be analyzed as part of the redesign process.Eventually, complexity is further resolved in synthesizing changes to individual components tounderstand the impact at the system level. Procedural and structural knowledge are necessarilydeveloped and
evaluation methods, 3rd ed., Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, 2002.[3] J. Saldana, The coding manual for qualitative researchers, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, 2021.[4] W. E. Smythe and M. J. Murray, “Owning the Story: Ethical Considerations in Narrative Research,” Ethics Behav., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 311–336, 2000, doi: 10.1207/S15327019EB1004_1.[5] D. Hammer and L. K. Berland, “Confusing Claims for Data: A Critique of Common Practices for Presenting Qualitative Research on Learning,” J. Learn. Sci., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 37–46, Jan. 2014, doi: 10.1080/10508406.2013.802652.[6] A. J. Kleinheksel, N. Rockich-Winston, H. Tawfik, and T. R. Wyatt, “Demystifying Content Analysis,” Am
53 1 = no gain to ICR: α = 0.95 (research Doctoral Research 5 = great gain comprehension and students Learning communication skills), α Assessment = 0.92 (practical research (ERLA) - skills), α = 0.86 (research Trainee scale ethics), α = 0.091 (research identity), α = 0.91 (research confidence and independence), α = 0.92 (equity and inclusion awareness and