markets for energy.The students were divided into teams, with one part of the team conducting the discussion andthe other part of the team using the EPSA Rubric to assess the discussions. Instead of usingelectronic voice recorders as is typically done by the researchers on the NSF sponsored project,when using the EPSA Method in a class-room setting all data was collected as the discussionstook place, with the assessors writing tally marks and notes directly on the relevant portion of theEPSA Rubric. The teams for both the practice scenario and the record scenario were organized asshown in Table 3.Table 3. Organization of the Discussant and Observer TeamsDiscussion Sub-Team Observer Sub-Team3-4 individuals (ideally
minds of local citizens and their level of trust and confidence inengineering and engineering-dominated organizations such as the Army Corps of Engineers.26Different opinions were voiced in class, including why rebuild at all in areas below sea level?However, about half of the students were silent and did not engage in these discussions. Thestudents were perhaps uncomfortable with uncertainty and the lack of clear, correct answers; oruncomfortable sharing their personal opinions when they were uncertain if their peers agreed ordisagreed. Some students voiced open skepticism, wondering why we were even looking at amap of residency disaggregated by race and in reference to sea level in New Orleans.In-class Discussion: Social JusticeA full class
AC 2011-32: FAMILIARIZING THE UNKNOWN: THREE UNUSUAL EN-GINEERING CASESMarilyn A. Dyrud, Oregon Institute of Technology Marilyn Dyrud is a full professor in the Communication Department at Oregon Institute of Technology and regularly teaches classes in business and technical writing, public speaking, rhetoric, and ethics; she is part of the faculty team for the Civil Engineering Department’s integrated senior project. She is active in ASEE as a regular presenter, moderator, and paper reviewer; she has also served as her campus’ representative for 17 years, as chair of the Pacific Northwest Section, and as section newsletter editor. She was named an ASEE Fellow in 2008 and received the James H. McGraw Award in 2010
. Consequences/impacts on others c. Sacrifice of self for others 3. Specific norms and traits a. Norms b. TraitsAs additional framing for the write-up that follows, it is worth starting with a more generalobservation about the ability of students to distinguish ethics from morality. On the one hand, itis notable that at least one interviewee was able to provide a fairly nuanced comparison of thetwo concepts, describing morality as “more of a personal thing” and ethics as “more of a codifiedstandard.” On the other hand, only a few students even attempted this delineation, and those whodid typically fell short of a satisfactory response. The results that follow should