based on evidence for both science and engineering6.However, not much has been said about the differences in arguments between the two domains.One of the differences that has been explored is the purpose of argumentation in each of thesefields; whereas scientists use arguments for evaluating and explaining natural phenomena,engineers use arguments for finding the best solution for a problem with a given set of Page 26.1460.3constraints. One of the few examples of research in engineering education was a study of collegestudents who engaged in realistic ethical problems in engineering; the researchers found thatthese students were able to
achieving their set goals; they also need to prioritize the scheduled activities, introduce changes if need be, solicit advice and assistance with the consent of the instructor, and maintain effective working relationships among the members. Instructors also should monitor group progress, give feedback on how well each group is doing, report each group’s progress to the class as a whole, and insure adherence to accepted standards of: ethics, social responsibility, and safety.Success in implementing cooperative learning is attributable, in large measure, to: properplanning, efforts, dedication, and foresight of the instructor. Experience definitely is a majorfactor. A proper start for instructors
II.1 The ability to adapt to cultural norms in a professional arena and act appropriately II.2 The ability to make ethical and socially responsible decisions in the context of a culture divergent form my own. II. 3 The ability to analyze problems from a different cultural frame of reference II.4 The ability to communicate professionally in a culturally appropriate manner12 Global Cultural III.1 The ability to practice social and cultural responsibility, e.g. resource sustainability III.2 Proficiency in a second language III.3 The ability to
lecture in these seminar classes, instead designing activities that encourage students todevelop and articulate their own ideas and responses to the texts. Students noted that theseactivities encouraged them to analyze topics more closely and to consider how to support theseobservations by identifying supporting materials and arguments in the course texts. This year’splays all focused on one topic, the building of the atomic bomb, which also allowed for manydiscussions on ethics and decision making in engineering. Some students noted that these typesof discussions made clear the potential for a multiplicity of ethical viewpoints, and by extensionhighlighted the opportunities afforded by multiple approaches to a problem, includingengineering
desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability (d) an ability to function on multidisciplinary teams (e) An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems (f) An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility (g) An ability to communicate effectively (h) The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context (i) A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning (j) A knowledge of contemporary issues (k) An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering
incorporate appropriate qualitative validation methods wherever possible. Whilecommunicative and pragmatic validity are typically emphasized in phenomenographic work8,28,the additional elements of theoretical, procedural, and ethical validation, and process reliabilityfrom Walther and colleagues’ framework will also improve the quality of this work. Table 2,adapted from Walther and colleagues33,34, outlines these concepts and specific procedures used.This paper itself, and the resulting conference presentation, represent one critical step in ensuringthe quality and rigor of the work. In particular, by presenting this work, in an intermediate stage,to a variety of individuals, we receive feedback to support communicative validity8,11.Table 2
17 0 1 2 3 11 Developing ethical reasoning and/or ethical decision making 11.76% 5.88% 5.88% 17.65% 58.82% 4.06 1.39 0 17 2 1 1 3 10 Learning to analyze and critically evaluate ideas, arguments, and points of view 11.76% 0% 5.88% 23.53% 58.82% 4.18 1.29 0 17 2 0 1 4
thinker, she is now developing and disseminating empirically-grounded models and strategies for improved human competence, motivation, and learning as it relates to the civil engineering profession and the construction industry. She is a discipline-based education researcher who passionately pursues research to develop an agile, ethical, diverse construction workforce enabled to lead, design, and build sustainable, intelligent infrastructure. Her mission is to transform the construction workforce and sustain change. To this end, she undertakes research that enables her to influence postsecondary education and workplace learning pathways; instructional, diversity, recruitment, and retention strategies; and federal
investigation and capturestudent data at scale, while providing direction for future work in subsequent studies. We usedthe quantitative method to collect information from the large (~1200) class of first-yearengineering students. We used qualitative methods to have a better understanding of theworkload problem from multiple perspectives.An ethics board-approved online survey was sent to sample groups of students each week tocover the large class of engineering students. Since our data is not coming from the exact samestudents each week – in an effort to prevent survey fatigue -- our interpretations are based on thereasonable assumption that these pseudo-random sample groups of 20 first-year engineeringstudents are statistically similar samples
still typicallytaught outside of the STEM major, sending the message to students that writing is not central toSTEM disciplines. To combat this issue, many have argued for writing across the curriculumand taking a discipline-specific view of writing.A challenge, even for these approaches, is engaging students in authentic writing that isfoundational to solving contextual and socially just design problems [2]. Whereas the focus ofmuch core engineering coursework is focused on building technical, disciplinary knowledge,many have argued for approaches that also prepare students to approach engineering problemsmore holistically, considering the ethics and consequences of their work [3]. For instance, instudents struggle to consider the ways their
studies as an instructional tool when possibleThe advisory board realized not every skill would require a dedicated course, but highly recommendedcritical skills are embedded, and essential principles (ethics, teamwork, communication, etc.) arereinforced across multiple core courses in the curriculum.Table 1: Advisory Board feedback. (The portions in bold justify advisory board recommendationsadopted for the PMT program at KSP) Professional Skills NA 2(low) 3 5(High) Comments 1. Critical Thinking/Decision Making 7X 2. Leadership/ Management Training 2X 5X /Organizational Behavior/Change Management/Negotiation/Conflict Resolution 3. Product
during both the 3-hour research course and 1-hour seminar and were often a majorfocal point in students’ course projects, these issues did not emerge as a major theme across thepost-course concept maps. Some students included vulnerable populations on their concept mapsas something needing attention, and others noted it in their explanations, but its limitedappearance raises new questions for both the research team and the program about strategies tohelp students more effectively integrate these ethical concerns into their conceptualunderstanding. In part, as suggested by the results, concept maps alone may not be a sufficienttool to capture students’ understanding of a domain as complex as DRRM. At the same time, it ispossible that some
had similar ways of thinking. These students highlightedaspects of their own or their peers’ latent diversity that made them different than the describednorms described by Naomi, Ayida, and Casey above. These students focused on personality(mainly introversion and extraversion), people who solved problems differently (top-down orbottom-up approaches), and work ethic as ways in which their peers showed aspects of latentdiversity that made them belong in engineering.The interview process provided an opportunity for students like Nathan (mechanical engineer) toclarify how he felt about diversity of thought in engineering. When asked about diverse ways ofthinking, Nathan focused on the introversion and extraversion dimension of personality
isolatedcontext of the classroom, however, a challenge for any intervention will be situating creativeexplanations within the broader landscape of engineering discourse and society. Since metaphorsreflect individual and cultural perspectives and values, emphasizing audience awareness,technical accuracy, and the ethical implications of generating and propagating metaphors will beuseful. A pedagogical intervention could enable a future study in which undergraduate engineersare interviewed about their process of metaphor creation and rhetorical goals. In addition, theeffectiveness of students’ metaphors could be evaluated by surveying their target audience togauge their comprehension of technical content presented with (and without) creativeexplanations.The
training. In addition, she is developing methodologies around hidden curriculum, academic emotions and physiology, and en- gineering makerspaces.Ms. Laura Ann Gelles, Utah State University - Engineering Education Laura Gelles is a second-year Ph.D. student at Utah State University in the Department of Engineering Education. Born in Reno, Nevada, she received her bachelor degree in Environmental Engineering from the University of Nevada Reno and her Master’s degree in Environmental Engineering from the University of North Dakota. She is currently researching ethical mentoring and hidden curriculum in graduate women students in science and engineering. Her other research interests include mixed-methods research design
Paper ID #22579When the Master Becomes the Student: Adviser Development through Grad-uate AdvisingAlison J Kerr, University of Tulsa Alison Kerr is a graduate student at The University of Tulsa. She is pursuing a doctoral degree in Industrial-Organizational Psychology. Her research interests include training development and evaluation as explored across a variety of academic disciplines and organizational settings. She is currently assist- ing on a number of training projects aimed at developing engineering students on relevant non-technical professional skills including ethical practice and presentation.Dr. Bradley J
ethical issues of my working with them. I realized that I needed to get thelanguage to do this work in a way that did not shortchange participants and aligned with myvalues. Taking this course was motivated by my experiences in a course on decolonizingmethodologies in education. This course shook me in a way that made it clear that colonialismand white-centered ideologies were at work in educational settings. There I had the space toquestion for whom science has been created, and why issues of representation dig much deeperthan getting minority individuals into science disciplines. Moreover, I got to be in space where Iwas truly uncomfortable because of my whiteness. Coming into this course, I hoped to find morespaces to be uncomfortable and
Paper ID #24885Exploring Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Engineering Undergrad-uate Experiences through AutoethnographyAndrea Haverkamp, Oregon State University Andrea Haverkamp is a doctoral candidate in Environmental Engineering. She is also a student in the Queer Studies Ph.D. minor within the department of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies. Andrea’s research interests include broadening participation in engineering, feminist research methods, and en- gineering ethics. Her dissertation research project studies gender dynamics in engineering education informed by queer theory and collaborative community
engineers within the workplace who mustsurvey information broadly to address problem and design tasks. Additionally, the presentationconnects information seeking and critical appraisal of sources to the ethical obligations engineershave to the people who ultimately use their designs. These components are essential to theefficacy of the intervention as they align with the curricular approach of the entire course and fitwithin the expectations students bring of the direct connection between their coursework andtheir future working lives.Stage 3: Students create final projects that must use relevant and credible sourcesAll course sections discussed in this reflection included a final project that required students todemonstrate relevant engineering
assessment of student learning.Dr. Scott Streiner, Rowan University Dr. Scott Streiner is an assistant professor in the Experiential Engineering Education Department (ExEEd) at Rowan University. He received his Ph.D in Industrial Engineering from the University of Pittsburgh, with a focus in engineering education. His research interests include engineering global competency, cur- ricula and assessment; pedagogical innovations through game-based and playful learning; spatial skills development and engineering ethics education. His funded research explores the nature of global com- petency development by assessing how international experiences improve the global perspectives of en- gineering students. Dr. Streiner has
likely due to the fast pace of the program, the time that isspent in the lab and in the field at forty hours per week and working with new people and their own uniquepersonalities and work ethic that may not mesh with their own. For example, some student mentor pairings have notbeen ideal. Personality clash can be a problem for some students that are more sensitive than others. So, changes inmentors have been made mid program for a couple of students. These changes did work out much better in the endbut was still a challenge to face.In order to help with the stress that arises during the program, the new workshops are being developed that will teachthe students new methods for dealing with stress. Mental and physical health components will be
are reasonably [emphasis added] protected [11].”The ABMS defines board certification as a “voluntary credential granted by an ABMS MemberBoard confirming a physician’s advanced knowledge, training, and skills in a specialty orsubspecialty that specific clinical, professional, and ethical standards are being met [emphasisadded] to provide patient care [11].” The concept of meeting standards equates to competency,and the “specific clinical, professional and ethical standards” are the recognized body ofknowledge of a medical specialty area, as defined by the profession.The standards for initial board certification are high and rigorously enforced. The ABMSspecifies that, before physicians can become board certified, they must [34]: • Finish
laboratory classes (they are blended with lecture classes). The average unit allocation for laboratory courses is 4.6 units. The majority of laboratory courses centers around the mechanics of materials and thermo-fluids laboratory courses.f) Other Core Major Classes: Courses in this category are: 1) Introduction to Engineering orMechanical Engineering (Non-CAD), 2) Engineering Economics, Professionalism, and Ethics, 3)Soft-Skill Development, and 4) Electrical Engineering Related Classes. Here are some notableobservations from the 125 mechanical engineering curriculum: Forty-six programs have an electrical engineering or related course that is customized for non-electrical engineering majors, which has become a
science from Purdue University in 1978. She joined Michigan Tech’s faculty shortly after completing her doctorate and chaired the department of computer science from 1996 to 2010. Her research interests are in software engineering, including software pro- cesses, software measurement, and software engineering education. She also has interests in ethical and social aspects of computing and has been active in efforts to increase the number of women in computing for many years. She has been a co-PI on nearly $1.5 million in grants from industry and the National Science Foundation. Dr. Ott is a 2010 recipient of the ACM SIGSOFT Retrospective Paper Award for the paper ”The Program Dependence Graph in a Software Development
professional seminar course covers topics in engineering professionalism, ethics, andleadership. The mode of class delivery primarily consists of a series of seminar lectures onvarious topics of engineering ethics and professional developments. The course is one credit andtaught by the same instructor teaching the Freshman Introduction to Engineering course. As apart of the class requirement, the senior students are expected over 7-8 weeks, to mentor, andassist freshman students in the completion of a realistic 3-D printing design project. The seniorstudents are expected to act as project mentors and provide expert technical advice and meet withgroups twice per week (one team meeting and one individual meeting with a student in therespective area of
0.875 searching Keeping a record of research activities 0.922 Using lab equipment 0.656 Making connections between classroom learning and research 0.690 Determining the next step in a research project 0.811 Working independently 0.853 Conducting research in an ethical and responsible manner 0.848 Providing leadership on projects 0.650 Finding relevant literature 0.769 Making connections
,development and use of design methodology, formulation of design problem statements andspecifications, consideration of alternative solutions, and detailed system description. Further, it isrequired to include constraints such as economic factors, safety, reliability, aesthetics, ethics, and socialimpact. Courses that contain engineering design normally are taught at the upper-division level of theengineering program. Some potion of this requirement must be satisfied by at least one course which isprimarily design, preferably at the senior level, and draws upon previous coursework in the relevantdiscipline” (14)A proliferation of capstone design experiences, over the last decade, has taken place at manycolleges of engineering – all seem to meet some
to prioritize the scheduled activities, introduce changes if need be, solicit advice and assistance with the consent of the instructor, and maintain effective working relationships among the members. Instructors also monitor group progress, give feedback on how well each group is doing, report each group’s progress to the class as a whole, and insure adherence to accepted standards of: ethics, social responsibility, and safety.Success in implementing cooperative learning is attributable, in large measure, to: properplanning, efforts, dedication, and foresight of the instructor. Experience definitely is a majorfactor. A proper start for instructors wanting to try active learning for the first