/society/article/2018061919711. Accessed July 10, 2019.Lee, Huiyong, Seo Mingyu, and Kim Jaedeuk. (2015). A study on the strategies to vitalize the fusion between humanities/social sciences and arts vitalization at the university level in South Korea. Munhak Kwa Eoneo Hakhoi 25-41.Lee Yedana & Son Seung-hyun. (2019). Exploring Knowledge Convergence through Project- Based Learning integrated Curriculum in University Liberal Arts Education. Journal of Education & Culture 25(1): 155-177.Ko, Sangwon and Kang Hayeon. (2014). 2013 Modularization of Korea’s Development Experience: ICT Human Resources Development Policy. Korea Development Institute (KDI).KEA (Korean Electronics Association). (2010
. Notwithstanding,the current general education curriculum in Taiwan still lacks engineering and humanitiesintegrated courses specifically designed for the College of Engineering, such as coursesrelated to engineering practice and corresponding cross-cultural socio-political systems. As aresult, students’ learning experiences are like a hodgepodge, lacking effectiveinterdisciplinary learning. Only a few engineering ethics courses are offered by professorsfrom the School of Engineering and School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, but theyface human resource, professional, and teaching bottlenecks.Universities in Korea started offering engineering and humanities integrated courses as partof engineering curricula or liberal education around 2000. Like
dimensions of engineering practice. This frameworkhelps to clarify how “sociotechnical integration” is in fact a high bar for engineering designpractice (or, for that matter, any formalized inquiry practice). The following section provides anoverview and justification of our Design Engineering program’s curricular structure, built as it isaround a “design spine”—that is, open-ended project-based design every semester—alongsidemore traditional engineering curricular requirements. After reviewing our curriculum, we turnattention to the design of our program’s ABET assessment infrastructure and how we have usedABET requirements to ensure we hold ourselves accountable to a high-bar of sociotechnicalintegration across our design spine. Before concluding
Society (STS) joined forces with the Chair of the Engineering Department atLoyola University Maryland (LUM) to radically transform the university’s introductoryengineering course. The former contributor arrived at the project having spent several yearsexperimenting in the classroom with various pedagogical strategies intended to historicize forengineering students the political, social, and economic context in which they (and those whocame before them) have lived, learned, and worked. That the complementary interests and skillsof a recent STS PhD and a seasoned Electrical Engineer would converge on the same problem(i.e., How to place engineering in context?) and at the same moment in time (i.e., mid-2022) maybe fortuitous. More likely, though, it
projects within engineering courses toteach our students about the effects of technology on others. At LUC, this is possible because all27 U.S. Jesuit universities possess a core (general education) curriculum based on socialjustice. In 1974, Jesuit General Congregation (GC) 32 decided to take a more active role inalleviating poverty and injustice. In 2008, GC35 called on Jesuit universities “to promote studiesand practices focusing on the causes of poverty and the question of the environment’simprovement” [26, 27]. At the 12 U.S. Jesuit universities with ABET-accredited engineeringprograms, the mean number of core curriculum courses is 11 ± 2 courses. At 9/12 of these Jesuituniversities, including at LUC, a social justice-based ethics course is
students, the course fulfills liberal arts Core Curriculum requirements inHistory II (Modern History), Natural Science, and Cultural Diversity. In addition, for students inthe undergraduate human-centered engineering major, MMW also fulfills their first year“introduction to design” engineering requirement. This course includes weekly lectures,engineering design labs, and peer-led reflection sections.Avneet Hira: I am an aerospace engineer trained in engineering education research and designedand have taught Introduction to Human Centered Engineering a 4-credit required course in thehuman-centered engineering major at our institution. The course is positioned to introducestudents to commonly taught first year engineering concepts (Reid et al., 2018
electrical and mechanical instructors to theleast (the focus in civil engineering is also noted in Bielefeldt et al, 2017). First year andcapstone design courses also emphasized the importance of ethics more than those teachingtechnical courses. This study looked primarily at specific instructor characteristics and how thesemight impact perceptions of ethics. The authors found that male engineering instructors placedmore emphasis on ethics in their own teaching, while female instructors had stronger beliefsaround the importance of the curriculum as a whole emphasizing engineering ethics. Theinstructors with industry experience also seemed to more strongly prioritize ethics in their ownteaching, congruent with the idea that instructors make
engineering culture? To answer this research question, we look at the engineeringteaming experiences of African American females in a diverse range of engineering disciplines.BackgroundTeams are a necessary and vital aspect of the engineering profession, and the process of teaminghas been studied widely in engineering education research (EER) and beyond [21]–[26]. Thereal-world problems engineers face are interdisciplinary and complex, requiring a group ofindividuals offering different backgrounds and areas of expertise to solve them. As a result,group projects requiring teams have become a staple in engineering curriculum [21]. Examplesof engineering team projects include freshmen design projects to capstone senior design projects,including
level is not, in and of itself novel. A simple Google Scholar search willgenerate over 24,000 citations elaborating upon such efforts. Peer-reviewed research on thistopic can be summarized into categories of innovation and specialized project development -including industry involvement (Goldberg, Cariapa, Corliss, et. al., 2014); professionalpreparation, and attribute/competency development (Hotaling, Fasse, Bost, et. al., 2012); andcapstone best-practices, pedagogy and assessment approaches (Newell, Doty, & Klein, 1990;Behdinan, Pop-Iliev, & Foster, 2014). Noticeably, however, the presence of recent innovativescholarship in this area appears scant.Looking back however to 1990, Newell, Doty, and Klein suggested that anecdotally, there
public, are recognizing the critical need for the ethical production andmanagement of AI. As a result, society is placing immense trust in engineering undergraduateand graduate programs to train future developers of AI in their ethical and public welfareresponsibilities.In this paper, we investigate whether engineering master’s students believe they receive thetraining they need from their educational curricula to negotiate this complex ethical landscape.The goal of the broader project is to understand how engineering students become public welfare“watchdogs”; i.e., how they learn to recognize and respond to their public welfareresponsibilities. As part of this project, we conducted in-depth interviews with 62 electrical andcomputer engineering
et al. [11] conducted a study of gendered interests and careeroutcome expectations in engineering. They found that within engineering programs, the gendergap disappeared in biomedical engineering, where female students expressed strongerassociations with “helping others,” while for electrical and computer engineering, femalestudents expressed less interest and associated the disciplines with “inventing/designing things”[11, p.298].Furthermore, students’ networks of support are also highly uneven. Though networks of support,especially those including family members and friends with disciplinary experience, are crucialto student success, students from underrepresented communities are less likely to have thesenetworks. In their research on
practices that work to downplay, obfuscate, or dismiss entirely the influence of socialand structural factors that reproduce educational disparities among historically marginalizedgroups in engineering and further drive them away from the field [4], [5], [13]. The broadersocietal implication of this problem is that it limits the diversity of perspectives that practiceengineering, which perpetuates the development of the unjust and inequitable distribution oftechnological consequences. We see this, for example, in the pervasiveness of algorithmic bias,infrastructure projects that harm minority communities, and a lack of (or undone) technologiesthat could benefit women and people of color [14], [15]. The recognition that we need to designculturally
. Her prior work experiences include product management, consulting, tutoring, marketing, and information technology.Rachel Eve Gail Swan, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Rachel Swan is an undergraduate student at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU). Since 2022 she has been an Undergraduate Research Assistant in the ERAU Wireless Devices and Electromagnetics Laboratory (WiDE Lab). She has also been an Undergraduate Research Assistant at the ERAU Biologically Inspired Design-for-Resilience (BID4R) Lab since 2023. Her research projects and interests include hardware security for RF applications and machine learning. She is a recipient of the ERAU’s 2023 Outstanding Electrical Engineering Undergraduate
. Eddington, Kansas State University Sean Eddington (Ph.D., Purdue University) is an assistant professor of Communication Studies at Kansas State University. Sean’s primary research interests exist at the intersections of organizational communi- cation, new media, gender, and organizing.Dr. Carla B. Zoltowski, Purdue University at West Lafayette (COE) Carla B. Zoltowski is an assistant professor of engineering practice in the Elmore Family School of Elec- trical and Computer Engineering (ECE) and (by courtesy) the School of Engineering Education, and Director of the Vertically Integrated Projects (VIP) Program within the College of Engineering at Pur- due. She holds a B.S. and M.S. in Electrical Engineering and a Ph.D. in
U.S. are finally heading the many calls to include sociotechnicalthinking–grappling with issues of power, history, and culture–throughout the undergraduateengineering curriculum. While non-purely-technical topics have historically been relegated toseparate courses, universities are now working to integrate sociotechnical content in coursespreviously considered to be purely technical. Researchers have varying motivations for thisfocus, including to better prepare students for engineering practice, which is inherentlysociotechnical [1]; to increase the sense of belonging of historically excluded students, who aremore likely to be interested in the social aspects [2]; and to create better societal outcomes [3-5].Attempts to disrupt the social
early sciencefiction that cautions against misguided and unethical science and engineering. As such, the novelshould be poised to help engineering undergraduates cultivate moral imagination and acommitment to socially responsible techno-science. However, despite recent critical editions ofthe novel that highlight its relevance for scientists and engineers, some instructors have faceddifficulties successfully integrating the novel into an undergraduate engineering curriculum, andstudents have struggled to appreciate its value to their ethical formation as engineeringprofessionals. Nevertheless, the novel’s potential to address ethical aspects of engineeringpractice calls for further attempts at integrating it into engineering education. In