provides opportunities for students to talk directly with membersfrom various stakeholder groups in the VA coalfields including state regulators, industrymembers and local citizens.3. SurveyAppendix A includes the survey instrument used in the first year of the study analyzed here. Itwas designed to measure students’ knowledge, abilities, and attitudes [15] related to CSR andcollect relevant background information to explore possible connections between those and thedemographic information, students’ motivations for pursuing engineering, their career desires,and their civic activities. The survey reflects feedback from an expert panel of engineeringeducators and industry practitioners, as well as “talk alouds” with students. Going through thefirst
. We show how students' conceptualization of differentstakeholders was relational, in that the ways in which pregnant women were conceptualized wasentangled with how Target was conceptualized. We also argue that the way students constructvarious stakeholders over three focus group sessions constrained how they were able tounderstand any of the stakeholders as causing harm or being harmed.Introduction Engineering ethics educators have developed a wealth of curricula that engagesengineering students in learning about codes of ethics and micro-ethical issues. However, muchof these curricula does not engage how technology's design and implementation is reflective ofsociopolitical systems and never value-neutral or how ethical design
integrated elements of social justice and CP through differentavenues as part of our goal to establish a DLS. First, we promoted a sense of equity starting fromthe recruitment process until the final presentation. This sense of equity was reflected in ourapproach to reaching out to each student individually without demonstrating privileges to aspecific group of students. We also created a learning environment where tutors and studentscould talk to each other easily throughout the course. This open line of communication seemedto have a strong relationship to the sense of community and collaboration within the classroom.Second, students were able to take decisions in some assignments. Decisions regarding creatingteams, agreeing on due dates, scoping
) hierarchy of needs. We selected these two scholars’ diagrams for referencebecause they closely reflect the goals of our conceptual framework for engineering thriving. Forexample, both Norrish’s and Maslow’s diagrams are based on the theories of optimal humanfunctioning, connect several competencies studied in depth by other researchers, are measurable,and apply to educational settings. Figure 2 illustrates these two diagrams of human thriving.Figure 2. Visual representation of Positive Education, adapted from Norrish (2013) andMaslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, adapted from Maslow (1970).Next, we reviewed Norrish’s and Maslow’s justifications for their visual frameworks of humanthriving and adapted the aspects that best applied to our conceptual
three key features: a specializedknowledge base, self-regulation, and a commitment to public service— [1-3] elements that havebeen historically codified into a set of ethical guidelines [1, 4, 5]. While these guidelines—Professional Codes of Ethics—may help engineers appreciate what not to do [4, 5], they areinsufficiently specific to guide novice engineers through ethically ambiguous situations. As early20th century artefacts, they also tend to reproduce structural inequities embedded in the history ofthe profession, and thus fail to reflect the experiences of historically underrepresented groups ofengineers [6-14]. The Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board’s (CEAB) pairing of ethics andequity [15] demands that we look beyond the codes to
terminology and the breadth of skills that may be included. A rigorous andstructured literature review is provided which identifies the range of terms used to describe thenon-technical skill set. Consistent with the practices of ASEE/LEES, and for the purposes of thispaper, the authors adopt the term professional skills as it is encompassing of a wide range ofcompetencies - but still has its weaknesses. The study uniquely used a structured review of the engineering education literature togather a first of its kind list of competencies not previously gathered. This list reflects theinconsistency in the terms used to describe the competencies. A content analysis of a sample ofengineering job advertisements did support that a large portion of the
turn can be used to identify asolution. Engineering educators tend to treat “society” as a distinctly separate silo fromengineering itself. This is not to say that society isn’t discussed within the engineeringclassroom, but it is often framed as a linear progression -- something is engineered, then it hasan impact on society. This is reflected in the 2016-2017 ABET outcome H: “the broad educationnecessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic,environmental, and societal context.” The very language of this statement indicates societalcontext is seen as relevant, but distinctly separate, from engineering solutions.Similarly, students’ lived experiences are typically contained in a separate silo. Students
on a Google sheet that the instructor manages.Tasks include grading daily quizzes, running critique workshops of three to six students, gradingmajor assignments, and special assignments, such as creating a format template in MicrosoftWord for the proposal.Background: Rather than having students bring drafts to class for on-the-spot critiquing,the course runs more formal critiquing based on the Iowa Writers Workshop One feature that distinguishes the course is the course’s peer critiquing, which follows theIowa Writers’ Workshop for creative writing [11]. In this approach, the students submit theirassignment excerpts at least two days before the workshop so that the peers and often a mentorhave the chance to read, reflect, edit, and