Conference Session

Engineering Ethics Division Technical Session - Assessment

Collection

2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Justin L Hess, Indiana University Purdue University, Indianapolis; Grant A Fore, Indiana University Purdue University, Indianapolis; Brandon H Sorge, Indiana University Purdue University, Indianapolis; M A Coleman, Indiana U Purdue U Indianapolis; Mary F. Price; Thomas William Hahn, IUPUI

Tagged Divisions

Engineering Ethics

Consensus-Building Skills, (3) Dispositions– Valuing Community Engagement,Self-Efficacy, Social Trustee of Knowledge, and (4) Behavioral Intentions.Interpersonal Reactivity IndexThe Interpersonal Reactivity Index [15] is a self-report psychometric instrument that measuresself-reported empathic tendencies via four subscales. In this study, we utilized only twosubscales from the Interpersonal Reactivity Index: (1) Perspective-Taking and (2) EmpathicConcern. Perspective-Taking represents one’s tendency to consider the perspectives of another orothers in general (i.e., non-engineering or science specific) everyday interactions. We describeperspective-taking as cognitive, meaning its focus is on mental processes and rational thought, aswell as other

Conference Session

Engineering Ethics Division Technical Session - Classroom Practices

Collection

2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Angela R. Bielefeldt, University of Colorado, Boulder; David Zhao; Alexandra Danielle Kulich, Tufts University; Madeline Polmear, University of Colorado, Boulder; Nathan E. Canney, CYS Structural Engineers Inc.; Chris Swan, Tufts University; Daniel Knight, University of Colorado, Boulder

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Engineering Ethics

than a survey.When the total number of themes identified per student on the post survey were compared to theLikert-type response items, two weak correlations were found: student ratings of importance ofethical issues to engineering (Spearman’s rho 0.184, two-tailed sig. 0.002) and average self-efficacy (preparation/ confidence across 4 items; Spearman’s rho 0.140, two-tailed sig. 0.017).However, there were not correlations with students’ rating of the importance of the considerationof societal issues to engineering (Spearman’s rho .083, sig. .156) or the level they felt prepared toface ethical issues in their future work (Spearman’s rho 0.90, two-tailed sig. 0.125). It wasexpected that if students’ believed ethics was important they would have