program is being conducted, additional assessments may involve determining what typeof instruction is used, how frequently it is conducted, or at what point the trainee must completethe program in their career. Evaluations beyond this may focus on how well the program actuallyworks or if it is effective in eliciting behavior change2. A common evaluation of effectiveness isto determine how trainees react to the training experience, the content of the program, or theinstructor delivery1,3,5. It is difficult and rare to evaluate how well ethics training actuallydevelops a trainee’s ethical reasoning or behavior change1. However, evaluating trainingprograms can help provide useful information which can be used to help make decisions aboutthe training
an engineering career. These neededareas include responsibility, critical thinking and work ethics. Two of the authors currentlyaddress this issue as an objective of a funded National Science Foundation grant (NSFAward#1565049). In Fall 2016, a FYS session was held by the second author mainly forengineering majors (environmental engineering and manufacturing engineering) and for otherSTEM majors addressing issues that are specific to engineering and other STEM careers.Appendix-A provides the assessment summary for this class. The authors will assess theeffectiveness of this course with respect to E&P in Fall 2017.The flagship course for teaching E&P, Environmental Professional Seminar, a one-credit hoursemester course is offered once
. Department: The mission of the Department of Mechanical Engineering is to educate students, within a caring Christian environment, in the discipline of mechanical engineering. Our graduates will be equipped with the fundamental technical, communication, and teamwork skills to succeed in their chosen careers. They will be empowered by innovative problem-solving creativity and an entrepreneurial mindset. They will be motivated by Christian ideals and a vocational calling to improve the quality of life worldwide.Religiously affiliated colleges and universities are a consideration for many parents and studentswhen deciding on which school to attend. Forbes published its rankings of the 20 best religiouslyaffiliated
more than the amount of time spent on ethical theories and the case study inthe joint venture model. So this allowed students to gain more knowledge overall and to bringthat knowledge to bear in the discussion. Nevertheless, both methods have proven to work inhelping students see the importance of ethics and ethical thinking in their future careers. One limitation of the studies as we have conducted them thus far is that the modules andtheir content remain somewhat isolated interventions into the courses. This is because the contentof the case studies used is not weaved throughout the course itself but rather discussed onlyduring the duration of the module itself. This limitation is somewhat structural insofar as it is thecase that
consortium of engineering education).Nupur Kulkarni, Cares for the environment - I am a Certified Leed Green Associate. I enjoy spending my hobby time in Photography, painting and traveling. Ardent faith in ethical behavior and a strong desire to make a career in ’spaces and local mediums’ Graduating in June 2017 from Savannah School of Art and Design – Geor- gia (USA) in Architecture after B. Arch from S.P. Pune University. Technical Skills such as AutoCAD, Google SketchUp, Photoshop, InDesign, Coral Draw, Illustrator, Premiere Pro, V-Ray, and Microsoft of- fice. Participated in several competitions viz. Essay writing ’Pune, People, and Places’, Green School Competition by Ethos ’In Big Tree Paradigm’ - focused on
first semesters of study. Whilethere have been similar initiatives in German universities, they have mostly not been verysuccessful yet.3 German Plagiarism CasesThe zu Guttenberg affair was a remarkable case of cheating done by a well-known publicpersonality in Germany. It is presented here in some detail because it marked a significantmilestone in the German discussion about plagiarism and cheating at the university level. Suchdiscussion or acknowledgement was more or less non-existant in the years prior to theseincidents.Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg became everybody’s darling during his short but remarkablysuccessful political career, courting the media and the general public alike. 8,20 From 2008 to 2010six leading print media outlets
a study looking at the perceptions of and experienceswith academic integrity that students bring with them post K-12, at the start of theirundergraduate engineering careers. It also provides a foundation to help track the evolution ofstudents’ perceptions of academic dishonesty as they progress through their studies.IntroductionEngineering work is performed within the context of a code of ethics. Codes of ethics are sharedby the different engineering professional societies, such as the American Society of CivilEngineers1, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers2, and the National Society ofProfessional Engineers3, among others. It is therefore important to ensure that engineeringstudents are being prepared to act within the
both engineering students and practicing engineers. Additionally, he teaches an on-campus ethics course for undergraduate students. Burgess provides guest lectures on ethics throughout the Whitacre College of Engineering. Burgess has also worked to incorporate ethics into K-12 STEM education. The push to increase the number of students pursuing STEM careers needs to be accompanied by a sophisticated understanding of the complexity of technology. Ethics is a key part of this complexity and the next generation of STEM professionals will need the skills to effectively engage the ethical challenges they will face. Burgess is a regular presenter on incorporating ethics in a K-12 setting. A theme throughout these roles is
, West Lafayette (College of Engineering) Dr. Brent K. Jesiek is an Associate Professor in the Schools of Engineering Education and Electrical and Computer Engineering at Purdue University. He also leads the Global Engineering Education Collabora- tory (GEEC) research group, and is the recipient of an NSF CAREER award to study boundary-spanning roles and competencies among early career engineers. He holds a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from Michigan Tech and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Science and Technology Studies (STS) from Virginia Tech. Dr. Jesiek draws on expertise from engineering, computing, and the social sciences to advance under- standing of geographic, disciplinary, and historical variations in engineering
curricular content makes a difference in shaping the beliefs and expectationsstudents hold as they transition into their professional careers. Such an assumption is warrantedgiven the way other topics appear in the curriculum. For example, if an emphasis on teamworkand problem-solving were not perceived as relevant to professional practice, then one would notexpect them to receive as much attention as they do4,5. Similarly, engineering ethics is anothersuch pivotal topic, and therefore one would expect it to appear in undergraduate courses. Yet,this is not uniformly the case. To understand the discrepancy in engineering ethics coverage, thiswork focuses on some of the central actors in course content decisions – engineering departmentfaculty members
Buzzanell, Purdue University, West Lafayette (College of Engineering) Patrice M. Buzzanell is a Distinguished Professor in the Brian Lamb School of Communication and the School of Engineering Education (courtesy) at Purdue University. She also serves as the Butler Chair and Director of the Susan Bulkily Butler Center for Leadership Excellence. Editor of four books and author of over 175 articles and chapters as well as proceedings and encyclopedia entries, her research centers on the intersections of career, change, leadership, and resilience. Fellow and past president of the International Communication Association, she has received numerous awards for her research, teaching/mentoring, and engagement. She has worked on
clear-cut solution.” And according to (Herkert,2000), they “encourage students to express ethical opinions, identify ethical issues, and formulateand effectively justify decisions.”There are disadvantages, however, that limit their educational effectiveness. At the conclusion ofthe case, the appropriate course of action may be obvious, particularly with well-known cases.Students may view the events described in the case as exceedingly rare occurrences that they areunlikely to encounter in their careers, or they may not consider the employment scenariopresented as a realistic possibility for themselves. A third-person account of events also may notprovide the experience required for students to engage emotionally, as is suggested by (Newberry
Paper ID #19677Investigating Engineering Students’ Understandings of Social and EthicalResponsibility: Coding Framework and Initial FindingsProf. Brent K. Jesiek, Purdue University, West Lafayette (College of Engineering) Dr. Brent K. Jesiek is an Associate Professor in the Schools of Engineering Education and Electrical and Computer Engineering at Purdue University. He also leads the Global Engineering Education Collabora- tory (GEEC) research group, and is the recipient of an NSF CAREER award to study boundary-spanning roles and competencies among early career engineers. He holds a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from
and discussions of engineering ethics tend to blur the distinction betweenethical judgments/decisions and actions/behaviors, assuming the ability to make ethicaljudgments/decisions will simply lead to ethical actions/behaviors – where unethicalactions/behaviors result from either a lack of knowledge regarding ethics or the inability to applythis knowledge. Charles Huff draws attention to this dichotomy, in terms of “decision-orientedapproaches to teaching ethics and approaches that are intended to develop ethical behavior overthe course of an entire scientific or engineering career.”26 However, personally andprofessionally, the actions and behaviors of others seem more important than their decisions andjudgments.For example, the decision of a
tends to focus almostexclusively on distinctive professional responsibilities – that is to say, ethical issues that arecommonly presented by the immediate practice of the work typical of each. For undergraduates,this is professional ethics in an industrial or consulting context.1 For graduate students, whosetraining is preparation for a career in research, this is typically research ethics, implicitly in anacademic context.2 Thus, both construe the responsibilities of the engineer relatively narrowly.In particular, the concerns of each taper dramatically as the borders of the immediate work siteare crossed. While some focus is of course necessary and appropriate, the present narrowness hasarguably become unhealthily myopic, particularly
of college are compared toupperclassmen to investigate shifts of these perceptions as the students progress through theircollege careers. As a supplement to the items that gauge the perception of these academicintegrity behaviors, the study also polls student respondents to self-report the number of timesthey have cheated. The ongoing work intends to administer the same instrument annually andreport on changes over time as well as comparison between programs.IntroductionThis paper first presents a brief review of prior work related to the current aims in Section 1. Thestudy design, the survey instrument, and a brief description of the institutions participating in thestudy are included in Section 2. Results and observations are in Section 3
in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees, and shall avoid conflicts of interest. 5. Engineers shall build their professional reputation on the merit of their services and shall not compete unfairly with others. 6. Engineers shall act in such a manner as to uphold and enhance the honor, integrity and dignity of the profession. 7. Engineers shall continue their professional development throughout their careers and shall provide opportunities for the professional development of those engineers under their supervision. Figure 2: Fundamental Canons as found in the ABET Code of Ethics Codes of ethics like the ABET code are more than just a written version of
withincredible speed.”71 One day, our students will complete their degrees, embark on careers, andfunction as designers of technological artifacts that will affect the rest of us. In many cases, thepredominant concern will be to develop an item that has a functional purpose: someone uses itfor a specific reason.But they may not understand that the design process also involves ethics, that technology notonly enhances our lives but directs our behavior, that technology reflects not only function butvalues as well. Quantification is just one part of the design process; ethics completes it.Recognizing the ethics inherent in technology helps that “tiny group of engineers” design for thegood of human experience, creating objects that reflect positive values