Conference Session

Engineering Ethics and Global Issues

Collection

2007 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Dawn Bikowski, Ohio University; Melissa Broeckelman, Ohio University

Tagged Divisions

Engineering Ethics

AC 2007-2114: AN EDUCATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR NURTURING ACULTURE OF ACADEMIC HONESTYDawn Bikowski, Ohio University Dawn Bikowski is the Director of the Graduate Writing Program at Ohio University. She teaches engineering graduate students about academic honesty within the context of developing a set of writing skills. She is also a doctoral student in Educational Studies. Her research interests include issues related to academic honesty and how technology can best be used in education.Melissa Broeckelman, Ohio University Melissa Broeckelman is a doctoral student in Communication Studies at Ohio University and is also the Academic Honesty Advisor for the Russ College of Engineering and Technology

Conference Session

Teaching Ethics II

Collection

2007 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Mysore Narayanan, Miami University

Tagged Divisions

Engineering Ethics

interaction per scenario. 5 more minutes to gather your final thoughts and write them down.Submission: Submit electronically a written report. Your responses should include: (a) A summary that indicates that you have captured the spirit of classroom, peer- group discussions. (b) Your own point of view as to how you would handle the Ethics Scenario presented.Requirements: Approximately 100 words per scenario. 4 scenarios, 400 words total.Commentary: Reflect on this classroom exercise and comment on the way it was organized and conducted. (No lectures, but peer-group discussions.) Indicate the importance of Ethics in Engineering Profession. What are your

Conference Session

Teaching Ethics II

Collection

2007 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Richard Freeman, Valparaiso University; Peter Johnson, Valparaiso University; Kenneth Leitch, Valparaiso University

Tagged Divisions

Engineering Ethics

from six to twelvehourly sessions. Additionally, students were assigned to a group. Each group was givena particular case from NSPE and asked to write and present an opinion as if they were anNSPE Board of Ethical Review (BER): summarizing the case, identifying the ethicalquestions and appropriate ethical canons, researching similar cases, and citing how otherBERs ruled and determining whether the engineers involved in the case acted in anethical manner. If the team could not come to a unanimous decision, they would have towrite both a majority and minority opinion. Unlike the previous assignment prior to theSpring 2005 semester, students were required to vigorously discuss and defend theiropinions on the cases.Changing the ethics assignment