engineering education [2], [3]. Despite thewidespread use of GenAI tools, they are still relatively new in engineering education. Thisintroduces uncertainties, including issues regarding ethics, accessibility, and algorithmic bias [2],[4]. There are also concerns around the lag between the rapidly growing uses of GenAI tools andthe current policies regarding their uses in engineering education [5], [6].In addition to ChatGPT, there have been other GenAI and large language model (LLMs) basedtools, with widespread uses for students, educators, and researchers in engineering education [2],[3]. This has created opportunities for innovation within engineering education along withchallenges of using them in learning environments [3]. Due to the recent
engineering suggest thatstudents should be cognizant of and prepared to act upon these issues concerningmacroethics—the social responsibility of the engineering profession [1]. For example, ABETStudent Outcome 2 notes that students must develop an understanding of engineering designincluding “consideration of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as global, cultural, social,environmental, and economic factors.” [2]. Additionally, the American Institute for Aeronauticsand Astronautics’ Code of Ethics says that engineers are expected to “hold paramount the safety,health, and welfare of the public in the performance of their duties” [3]. These statements leavegreat latitude to the curriculum and the instructor in interpreting who counts as the
. IntroductionGenerative AI (GenAI) is reshaping education, challenging educators to reconsider what theyteach, how they teach, and how they engage and assess student learning in the classroom. Asstudents are already using these tools in their academic work at a higher rate than we expect [1],taking a proactive and forward-thinking approach to integrating GenAI into engineeringeducation is becoming increasingly important. Such an approach will not only equip studentswith the ability to critically evaluate AI-generated outputs but also encourage them to explore itslimitations and ethical and professional implications.In this case study, the authors explore the integration of two GenAI-based writing assignmentsinto a senior-level design course. The goals of this
Paper ID #37314Diverse Perspectives, Engineering in Context, andExperiential Learning in Engineering EducationLauren Kuryloski (Assistant Professor of Teaching) Lauren Kuryloski is an Assistant Professor of Teaching in the Department of Engineering Education at the University at Buffalo. She teaches Technical Communication courses at both the undergraduate and graduate level.Amy Baird Amy Baird is an Assistant Professor of Practice in the Department of Engineering Education at the University at Buffalo. She teaches STEM Communications and Ethics in Engineering and Computing to undergraduate engineering and
Paper ID #29814Designing for a Sustainable World: Integrating the United NationsSustainable Development Goals into a First-Year Engineering Course inScience, Technology and SocietyDr. Benjamin J. Laugelli, University of Virginia Dr. Laugelli is an Assistant Professor of Engineering and Society at the University of Virginia. He teaches courses that explore social and ethical aspects of engineering design and practice, including Sci- ence, Technology, and Contemporary Issues; Technology and the Frankenstein Myth; The LEGO Course: Engineering Design and Values; STS and Engineering Practice; and The Engineer, Ethics, and Profes
focuses on human-computer interaction, human-AI interaction, and social and collaborative computing. Since 2023, Dr. Smith has been continuously involved in efforts to assess and understand student adoption of Generative AI (GenAI) across campus. She participated in writing institution-wide policies for Mines, and she has given numerous guest lectures and organized numerous workshops on the ethics and use of GenAI in engineering education. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2025 Assessing Student Adoption of Generative Artificial Intelligence across Engineering Education from 2023 to 2024AbstractGenerative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) tools and models have the
the follow-up question, why do engineers solve problems?is not as frequently communicated. Engineers solve problems for the benefit of society. Evidencefor this role is seen within the National Society of Professional Engineer’s code of ethicscannons and rules of practice, the first of which is “Engineers shall hold paramount the safety,health, and welfare of the public [1].” While not every engineer will be providing individualizedproblem solutions, i.e. care, the discipline of engineering is intended to provide solutions andcare to society. Engineers are societal caregivers. The problems engineers are called on to solve, are complex, not just from anintellectually rigorous perspective, but also from the myriad of societal, ethical
Paper ID #20044The Use of Narrative in Undergraduate Engineering EducationDr. Gary P. Halada, Stony Brook University Dr. Halada, Associate Professor in Materials Science and Engineering at Stony Brook University, directs an interdisciplinary undergraduate degree program in Engineering Science. He designs educational ma- terials focused on nanotechnology, advanced manufacturing, and how engineers learn from engineering disasters and how failure and risk analysis can be used to teach about ethics and societal implications of emerging technologies. Halada also coordinates the Long Island Alternative Energy Consortium, a
the ABET GeneralCriterion 3: Student Outcomes, General Criterion 5: Curriculum, and the Program Criteria forCivil and Similarly Named Engineering Programs (CEPC). The comparisons are provided inTables 1 through 21. For those outcomes that include both the cognitive domain and theaffective domain (Tables 15 Sustainability through 21 Ethical Responsibilities), both of theoutcome statements are provided in the table. Following each table is a discussion of theCEBOK3 outcome and the relevant ABET accreditation criteria, along with a recommendationfor “closing the gap” when it is determined that the ABET criteria only partially addresses ordoes not address the CEBOK3 outcome. It should be noted that the comparisons, ratings, andrecommendations are
Session 2330 Eight-Dimensional Methodology for Innovative Thinking About the Case and Ethics of the Mount Graham, Large Binocular Telescope Project Submitted by:Rosalyn W. Berne, Division of Technology, Culture and Communication,University of Virginia, 351 McCormick Road, Thornton Road, Charlottesville, Va. 22904.434-924-6098. rwb@virginia.eduAnd,Daniel Raviv, Florida Atlantic University, Electrical Engineering Department, FloridaAtlantic University, Boca Raton Florida, 33431. 561-297-2773. ravivd@fau.eduAbstract Case analysis is a common method for
education. A second set of challenges has interrogated the contents of the engineering sciences and engineering design. Social philosophers have long mapped engineers as technological intelligentsia whose success depends upon a wide range of social, ethical, and epistemological criteria (Goldman 1984; Lenk 1984; Davis 1996). Micro-‐ethicists have made visible contrasts between formal codes and actual practices (Baum and Flores 1982; Martin and Schinzinger 1983). More recently, macro-‐ethicists make visible a range of broader material projects that engineering formation and engineering work could serve or, in some cases, does serve (Herkert 2009
Measurement Laboratory MIME 209 [3] Mathematical Applications Group D. 9-12 credits from: COMP 445 [3] Computational Linguistics COMP 550 [3] Natural Language Processing COMP 579 [4] Reinforcement Learning ECSE 415 [3] Introduction to Computer Vision ECSE 446 [3] Realistic Image Synthesis ECSE 507 [3] Optimization and Optimal Control ECSE 526 [3] Artificial Intelligence ECSE 544 [4] Computational Photography ECSE 552 [4] Deep Learning ECSE 557 [3] Introduction to Ethics of Intelligent Systems MECH 559 [3] Engineering Systems Optimization Or any 400 or 500 level special topics courses in the area of artificial intelligence with the
AC 2010-1756: SPECIAL SESSION: NEXT GENERATION PROBLEM-SOLVING:RESULTS TO DATE - MODELS AND MODELING USING MEASLarry Shuman, University of Pittsburgh Larry J. Shuman is Senior Associate Dean for Academics and Professor of Industrial Engineering at the University of Pittsburgh. His research focuses on improving the engineering educational experience with an emphasis on assessment of design and problem solving, and the study of the ethical behavior of engineers and engineering managers. A former senior editor of the Journal of Engineering Education, Dr. Shuman is the founding editor of Advances in Engineering Education. He has published widely in the engineering education literature, and is co-author
competencies. ABET, the European Network forEngineering Education (ENAEE), and the Federation of Engineering Institutions in Asia and thePacific (FEIAP) highlight the need for engineers to recognize and account for the impacts ofengineering practice and design in broad contexts that impact human and environmentalconditions throughout their guidelines. ABET (2021) mandates that engineering graduates have“an ability to apply engineering design to produce solutions that meet specified needs withconsideration of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as global, cultural, social,environmental, and economic factors,” and “an ability to recognize ethical and professionalresponsibilities in engineering situations and make informed judgments, which must
apply engineering design to produce solutions that meet specified needs with consideration ofpublic health, safety, and welfare as well as global, cultural, social, and environmental, andeconomic factors” [2]. Outcome 4 is the “ability to recognize ethical and professionalresponsibilities in engineering situations and make informed judgements, which must considerthe impact of engineering solutions in global, economic, environmental, and societal contexts”[2]. Although public policy isn’t directly stated in the outcomes, the need to incorporate multi-disciplinary issues and the cause and effect of engineering decisions and solutions on othersystems is evident. Although there is consensus that humanities and social sciences topics such as
, alumni network, team and leadership skills development, global awareness, sustainability, and diversity, equity and inclusion.Robert Enick ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 How We Incorporate the Impact of Engineering Solutions in Global, Economic, Environmental and Social ContextsIntroductionThe ABET student outcomes (2) “the ability to apply engineering design to produce solutions thatmeet specified needs with consideration of public health, safety and welfare, as well as global,cultural, social, environmental and economic factors” and (4) “ability to recognize ethical andprofessional responsibilities in engineering situations and make informed judgements, which mustconsider
andconducting research from locations in time zones around the globe. The learning goals for thiscourse were developed such that students who participated in the course would: • Learn about research mentoring styles and build skills for communicating about goals and expectations with research mentors • Examine and apply time management skills for balancing academic, research and personal goals during college • Gain an understanding of the structure of research literature and develop skills for identifying and organizing appropriate references within their field of research • Explore methods for documenting and disseminating research results in engineering • Learn about ethical practices for research, and be able to articulate key
. Page 14.764.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2009 Integrating Professional Topics and Engineering Constraints Across the CurriculumAbstractMost of us do not learn a skill the first time we try something. Same is true forengineering knowledge and attitudes. Therefore, developing engineering knowledge,skills, and attitudes cannot be relegated to single coverage within the curriculum. Topicsmust be introduced and wrestled with early in the curriculum, sustained throughadditional application during intermediate years, and engrained through integratedapplication during senior design. The concepts of globalization, public policy, andleadership and engineering constraints such as sustainability and ethics
. Page 11.880.3Assessment can become a motivator itself for supporting intentional learning, if the focus of theassessment is the entire learning process rather than knowledge outcomes alone. Liberativeassessment should fit into a larger picture related to the entire curriculum, in which courses arelinked to who students are as individual learners, and what motivates them to pursue engineering.In the first year, our institution’s introductory engineering design course engages studentidentities and introduces the ethics and social relevance of engineering. It is critical at this pointto hear students’ voices to learn what they bring into the program and how they think aboutengineering. Their questions can become a motivating force for the entire
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM)fields, which this paper details. The next section provides more background on OSINT and itsuse by cyber criminals, governments, local law enforcement, and private corporations. Section 3details the OSINT course activity, such as the project description, objectives, classdemographics, logistics and scope, and student deliverables. The fourth section incorporatesstudent responses to the project, including general feelings about the project, how it relates tocybersecurity, strategies for completing the project, and how they managed challenges faced inthe process. Section 5 is an overview of lessons learned by the educator, including how todevelop an ethical project on this topic, create instructions
theseperceptions changed after STEP. Data were collected using open-ended entrance surveys andwritten responses on final exams. Research protocols were approved by the Institutional ReviewBoard (#13-577).Context and ParticipantsThe research setting was an introductory engineering course embedded within STEP. The courseis designed to introduce students to fundamental engineering concepts, and course objectivesincluded engagement with the engineering design process, exploration of engineering disciplines,engineering ethics, technical writing, and problem solving with software tools (Matlab). Thecourse curriculum integrated problem-based learning and product archaeology frameworks(Barrows, 1986; Kolmos, De Graaff, Johri, & Olds, 2014; Lewis et al., 2011
, Title, and Media Format for Each Unit in Tech 198 Unit Title of Unit Media Format 1 Nature of Science and Technology Multimedia CDs 2 History of Technology Web-based 3 Technology and Work Multimedia CDs 4 Technology and Gender Issues Multimedia CDs 5 Technology Transfer and Cultural Issues Lecture/Activity 6 Quality of Life Lecture/Activity 7 Ethics Lecture/ActivityAll the instructors teaching this course use the CD and web-based learning materials in
of Civil, Environmental, & Architectural Engi- neering at the University of Colorado, Boulder, since 1996. She has taught first-year introductory courses, senior capstone design, and specialty senior-level/graduate courses in environmental engineering. Her research interests in engineering education have focused on service learning, sustainability, and ethics. Page 25.558.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2012 Engineering Students’ Views of the Role of Engineering in SocietyAbstractA developed sense of social responsibility
Committee of the IEEE Education Society. He was the 20022006 President of Tau Beta Pi. Page 22.418.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2011 Defining “Sustainable Engineering”: a comparative analysis of published sustainability principles and existing courses1. IntroductionAs a concept and a value in engineering and engineering education, sustainability has gainedwide acceptance and importance: engineering disciplinary society codes of ethics andresponsibilities1-4, accreditation criteria5, statements from engineering professional
to apply knowledge and student creative thinking from the different delivery systems , 2. CUES EKE Protocol for rating of activities, 3. CUES EKE for rating of course/instructional delivery, 4. models, matrices and subject/course-specific structures of knowledge for a discipline, 5. universal register of essential knowledge, and 6. ethics and life long learning.Goals and ObjectivesThe objectives of this paper are to: 1. demonstrate the viability of CUES Assessment Model (CUES-AM) as amedium for enhanced student learning, continuous improvement and assessment ofstudents achievement, 2. disseminate the
of professional registration.Another level of accountability in engineering are codes and standards which provide accountabilityfor a given task, especially for engineers not professionally registered. If engineers do not followthese guidelines or topics and the result is a failure that causes loss of property and/or life, the legalsystem is always ready to hold engineers accountable. In addition to the external accountability thatexists for engineers, there is also an internal, personal accountability that exists. Internalizing theprofessional code of ethics is a start. Many people have other systems by which they live as well.Religion plays a big part in this role, whether it be Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Confucianism,Christianity, Taoism
Making in American Politics; Phase II—Decision Making in Engineering and Science;Phase III—Ethical Issues in Engineering and Policy. Interspersed throughout these three phaseswould be the laboratory component whereby students would meet with legislators and heads ofstate government agencies, such as transportation, environment and water, at the StateLegislative Building and government offices in surrounding areas.Phase IStudents were introduced to some of the fundamentals of the policy process from the socialscience perspective through an exploration of various decision-making models. We drew uponBrower and Abolafia’s “Bureaucratic Politics: The View from Below,” [1] which builds upon thesocial science gold standard—Graham Allison’s Conceptual
-specified outcomes and provides consistency for the general education of undergraduateprograms at Purdue university. Furthermore, the course aligns with the requirements of commonconstruction-related accreditation bodies, such as the American Council for ConstructionEducation (ACCE) [6] and the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET)[7], by providing discussions related to ethics and risk management.The course is a lecture-based, 3-credit hour course. Two one-hour and fifteen-minute lectures perweek were scheduled for the course for the Fall 2022 semester. Through over 29 biweeklyclasses and book discussions, the instructors utilized: (i) architectural history as a background todiscuss the relationship between the changes in
, gain a minimum of four years ofworking experience, and pass two intensive competency exams to earn a P.E. license from theirrespective state's licensure board. One of the main goals of enforcing a P.E. license is to ensureengineering graduates follow ethical responsibility to protect public health, safety, and welfare.Currently, every state regulates the practice of engineering to ensure public safety by grantingonly Professional Engineers (PEs) the authority to sign and seal engineering plans and offer theirservices to the public [10].Historical data to regulate engineering practices in the United States dates back to the early1900s when the state of Wyoming established licensing requirements in 1907 [10]. The country'swestward expansion
toreally grapple with the material effects that environmental contamination can have forcommunities who live in environmental sacrifice zones. Using these concepts in the classroomcan pull students into deep conversations about ethics and responsibility and emphasize the needfor more far-reaching visions of technical communication and community engagement, likethose explored in recent work on Socially Responsible Engineering [5].In this paper, we focus particularly on what we call systems theories and material vibrancy andenchantment theories. For each of these, we offer a synopsis of several key insights, texts, andimplications. Then, we show the utility of the approach in question to advance importantpedagogical goals related to ethics and