“older,” “mature,” “adult,” “non-traditional” or “returning” students, have had a variety of careerand life experiences between their undergraduate and graduate studies. These returning studentsdiffer from direct-pathway graduate students; they are often more motivated and mature9,10, moregoal-directed4,10, more aware of ethical issues9, have better teamwork skills9, have a high workethic10, and more skilled with a variety of tools and types of equipment10. They also utilize timemanagement strategies more effectively than younger students, and model effective studystrategies for direct-pathway students to emulate11. These characteristics can add to theclassroom environment and enrich the graduate experience for the student body as a whole9,10
. Because law is a reflection of the ethical and moral climateof a jurisdiction, it will change as that climate changes. New legislation is passed. Decisions in older Page 4.451.5cases may be overturned or modified. However, the parties in those old cases cannot now return tocourt and get the decisions in their particular case changed – only the law has changed, not theircase. In actual practice it is unlikely the parties even know their case has been overturned or the lawapplicable to their case has changed. Many years or decades may have elapsed.4. The River of Case LawWith all of these different courts making and interpreting the law, how do
therefore adversely influence the career choices thatthe students make. For example, Barrington and Duffy found that girls are more likely to pursuecareers in engineering and science if engineering is presented in a more socially relevant contextsuch as engineering service-learning projects3.Engineers indeed perform an incredibly wide variety of functions applying science andmathematics to solve problems of interest to society. Therefore, in addition to science andmathematics skills, engineers must have effective communication skills, be highly team-oriented,have high ethical principles, be familiar with and understand major societal problems,demonstrate leadership qualities and understand the impact of their work on society. The factthat the next
has to be viewed as an ethical human endeavor that addresses the needs of aglobal society. Engineers are inventors and designers; they apply science and mathematics; anduse their imagination and creativity to make ideas a reality. They create technical solutions tomeet societal needs. This forms the core of engineering activities2,3. Yet, there is a decline inhigh school students’ interest in careers in science and engineering resulting in a decline inengineering enrollment, both undergraduate and graduate. Engineering doctorates have declinedin recent years and are still below the levels of the 1980s3.Adolescents seldom lack curiosity, but as they go into the teenage years their enthusiasm forlearning Science, Technology, Engineering, and
technology have beenredefined for the 21st century per the National Academy of Engineering report Technically Speaking. 7Engineering and technology are no longer misinterpreted as “applied science.” As William Wulf,president of the National Academy of Engineering, pointed out in his plenary address to ASEE:“Engineering is design under constraint.”8 Some of those constraints are socio, economic, legal, ethical,and the natural laws of science. Accordingly, the National Collaborative Task Force believes that themodern paradigm and process for needs-driven engineering can be reflected as shown below: 9 Engineering → Technology
definition.With growing attention from industry 16, 17 and in the literature 7 given to professional skills,accreditation organizations began to include these skills in their outcomes. The AccreditationBoard for Engineering and Technology (ABET) engineering criteria began to explicitly requireprofessional skills as student outcomes in 2001 18 and has continued to include them in revisionssince 15. ABET came to see these skills as needed by all engineering graduates. The following sixof the eleven outcomes specified in the ABET engineering criteria fit within the literature list ofprofessional skills 7: an ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams (3.d) an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility (3.f) an ability to
., 2018; Chrysochoou et al., 2022; Robert, 2023; Tayloret al., 2019; Ward & Webster, 2018). This ques�oning is more common with invisible disabili�es likecogni�ve differences rather than physical disabili�es that are visually obvious (Cueller et al., 2022).Common reac�ons from faculty include suspicion and accusa�ons of lying, chea�ng, stealing, or takingadvantage of the “fair” educa�on system (Bolourian et al., 2018; Chrysochoou et al., 2022; Robert, 2023;Slaton, 2013; Ward & Webster, 2018. Students are greeted with hos�lity, doubt, irrita�on, andstatements that the student is extra work (Dwyer et al., 2023; Long & Stabler, 2021), a drain on resources(Long & Stabler, 2021), lazy and without a work ethic (Chrysochoou et al., 2022
Engineering at the University of Toronto. She previously completed her Bachelors in Industrial Engineering also at the University of Toronto. She is passionate about supporting women in Engineering and STEM more broadly, both within and outside of her research. She has held fellowships in Ethics of AI and Technology & Society organizations.Dr. Alison Olechowski, University of Toronto Alison Olechowski is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering and the Institute for Studies in Transdisciplinary Engineering Education and Practice. She completed her PhD at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). ©American Society for Engineering Education
rubrics.MethodsThis paper is part of an ongoing project to investigate how systems thinking can be used incombination with popular threat modeling frameworks like STRIDE to teach and assesscomponent-level and system-level threat modeling to upper-level software engineering students.In this section, we provide an overview of the methods we used in our study. We begin bydescribing the software engineering course where we piloted our study. Next, we discuss our datacollection strategy, introduce the pilot version of our rubric, our data analysis approach (scoringstrategy using our rubric), and ethical considerations.Data collectionTo answer our research question, we collected data on the students’ team projects. In the project,student teams had to deliver the
with her students, inviting community members whowere impacted (many of her students’ relatives) to come present to the class. As a result, the fourth-grade students engaged in the engineering design process to construct and test dam designs withthe community context in mind, grappled with the ethics of engineering, and offered alternativesolutions. This example demonstrates the power of connecting an engineering task to place, localhistory, and community and cultural contexts to increase relevance and importance for students.Other CRED tasks developed by teachers included areas of interest such as: designing a filtrationsystem to improve indoor air quality, developing a severe weather app to be used by teen drivers,creating a model of a
Mechanical Engineering from Bahonar University in Iran.Dr. Sreyoshi Bhaduri, ThatStatsGirl Dr. Sreyoshi Bhaduri is an Engineering Educator and People Research Scientist. She employs innovative and ethical mixed-methods research approaches to uncover insights about the 21st century workforce. Sreyoshi has a doctorate in Engineering Education, and Masters degrees in Applied Statistics (M.A.) and Mechanical Engineering (M.S.), from Virginia Tech. She earned her Bachelors degree in Mechatronics Engineering from Manipal University in India. Sreyoshi has been recognized as a Graduate Academy for Teaching Excellence (VTGrATE) Fellow, a Global Perspectives Program (GPP) Fellow, a Diversity scholar, and was inducted in the
solution of differential equations. ethics, and historical societal responses to scienceWe first look at the physical model, then make and art. The development, implementation, andthe appropriate numerical scheme, error analysis assessment of this team-taught course at Lafayetteis done, code is written, solutions are studied College will be discussed.and then finally we look at differences betweenlinear and non linear equations and the onset I.A.3. Integrating Writing into the Engineering of chaos. Curriculum, or How to Build a Dog House Students are expected to
courses in flow visualization, this course assumesare motivated by problems seen in the no a priori familiarity with fluid flow or withtraditional calculus course, such as Newton’s photography. The fundamentals of both areroot finding method, numerical integration and taught and practiced in a studio setting. Studentsdifferentiation. are engaged in an interdisciplinary discourse The second half of the course is the study of about fluids and physics, photography, scientificthe numerical solution of differential equations. ethics, and historical societal responses to scienceWe first look at the physical model, then make
transition- ing to an education-focused career track, Melissa taught at Stanford University, Santa Clara University, and Foothill College. These engagements have included courses within and outside the major, aimed at undergraduates at all years, high school students, and working adults. Melissa is now the Science and Engineering Education Fellow (SEEF) for the Bioengineering department, where she works on broader educational research projects and curricular change. Her work includes trying to better understand and support student development as ethical and quantitative thinkers. Through work with Stanford’s Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL), Melissa has also developed diversity and inclusion content for instruc
: including“specified criteria for success” as they go about defining problems, and planning and carryingout “fair tests in which variables are controlled and failure points are considered to identifyaspects of a model or prototype that can be improved.”6 Another principle for elementary through high school engineering education, accordingto the Committee on K12 Engineering Education, is that it promotes engineering habits of mind.Specifically, the committee referenced the following habits of mind: “systems thinking,collaboration, ethical considerations, creativity, communication and optimism.”7 Optimism“reflects a world view in which possibilities and opportunities can be found in every challengeand an understanding that every technology can
characteristics of high quality STEM integration, including providing“opportunities for students to learn from failure and redesign.”18 Many in engineering educationpromote the idea of teaching it through the habits of mind, or how engineers think and do theirwork.19 These include: “systems thinking, collaboration, ethical considerations, creativity,communication and optimism.”20 Failure, although not explicitly named, is best exemplified aspart of the habit of mind of optimism. Resilient responses to design failure include an optimisticmindset that the problem can indeed be solved or that the failure can be overcome. Theseresponses are representative of a growth mindset, in which students learn from failure andbelieve that growth is a natural byproduct
dichotomy of relevant versus irrelevant, or fair versus unfair, frames the feelings of manyengineers when it comes to their treatment of ethics. Unlike many aspects of engineering ethicslooks mostly in hindsight, not at all with innovation. It is usually seen as a reaction to a crisis.This hindsight is framed by topics that were seen as unimportant, the first pillar of Cech’s theoryof disengagement [17]. The final pillar is prevalent in many undergraduate and graduateengineering departments to an extreme measure. Numerous studies have pointed to the need toweed out the weak students from undergraduate programs. This builds on the very foundations ofengineering education as a vocational degree for the brightest students. This overarching concernwith
. Should theuniversity instead not engage in the debate and attempt to influence and moderate the wayuniversities are compared and consequently ranked?The authors argue strongly that universities must attempt to ensure that they are measured andcompared against a set of meaningful measures that captures the full extent of what theycontribute. This is particularly true for engineering and technology education because of thegrowing awareness of importance of the social and ethical dimensions to engineering andtechnology education.Typical Critiques of University Rankings and ComparisonsClearly there have been many well-intentioned attempts at ranking and comparisons. But, it isalso true that other approaches exist that seem to be weak in their
Criterion 3 Student Outcome 5 [4]). Passow [5]surveyed ~2000 engineering graduates in 11 engineering fields at 2 years, 6 years, and 10 yearsafter graduation and asked them to rank the ABET competencies (a-k in 2012 [6]) in order ofimportance for engineering practice. Practicing engineers ranked teamwork, data analysis,problem solving, and communication skills as the most important competencies in theirprofessional experience. These skills were ranked significantly above the other ABETcompetencies surveyed (math, science, and engineering skills, experimental design, processdesign, ethics, impact, life-long learning, engineering tools, and contemporary issues). Morerecent studies similarly emphasize the importance of teamwork skills [7] as well as a
include the profes- sional formation of engineers, diversity and inclusion in engineering, human-centered design, engineering ethics, leadership, service-learning, and accessibility and assistive-technology.Prof. Brian C. Fabien, University of Washington c American Society for Engineering Education, 2017 Paper ID #19405 Professor Fabien joined the University of Washington in 1993 and is currently the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs in the College of Engineering. His research interests include the kinematics of mecha- nisms, dynamic system analysis and optimization, as well as control system design
- A.D. Welliver Fellow, in 1999.Walter Peters, University of South Carolina WALLY PETERS is Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Director of the Laboratory for Sustainable Solutions, and Faculty Associate in the School of the Environment. His research interests include sustainable design, industrial ecology, complex systems, and environmental/earth ethics. Page 11.1290.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2006