@letu.edu.Paul Leiffer, LeTourneau University Dr. Paul R. Leiffer is a professor in the School of Engineering and Engineering Technology at LeTourneau University and chair of the Engineering Department, where he has taught since 1979. He is co-developer of the program in BioMedical Engineering. He received his B.S.E.E. from the State University of New York at Buffalo and his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from Drexel University. Prior to joining the faculty at LeTourneau, he was involved in cardiac cell research at the University of Kansas Medical Center. His professional interests include bioinstrumentation, digital signal processing, and engineering ethics. Email: paulleiffer@letu.eduThomas
[3]: (a) An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering (b) An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data (c) An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability (d) An ability to function on multi-disciplinary 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
currently pursuing research in ethical and moral development in the engineering profession and how that relates to student learning.William Davis, The Citadel William Davis is an Associate Professor in the Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering at The Citadel in Charleston, SC. He obtained a B.S. in Civil Engineering from the University of Alabama, M.S. from Auburn University and earned a Ph.D. in Transportation Engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology. Dr. Davis is a member of ASEE, American Society of Civil Engineers, Institute of Transportation Engineers and Transportation Research Board. He serves as Chair of the Education and Student Chapter Committee for the
engineering curriculum today must meet the requirements for the global engineer, studentsare prepared: 1. to face challenges of globalization 2. to develop effective communication skills 3. to be acquainted with cultural literacy 4. to consider social, ethical, environmental and economic issues 5. to ensure quality, information preciseness and manage human resources Page 13.478.3 6. for life-long learning,The EE curriculum at IIT, Kharagpur was totally revised in 2002. Table 1 shows a comparisonof EE curricula before and after 2002. Table 1: Comparison of EE Curriculum at IIT, Kharagpur before and after 2002 Sl
designed to avoid failure. The ethical implications of engineering failures are also discussed, and students individually research and report on a recent engineering failure (of their own choosing), providing a brief failure report and presentation.Modules 2 and 3 (the “mousebot” and fuel cell) have been recently redesigned to expand theopportunities for active (hands-on) and problem based learning. For example, students areencouraged and directed to optimize the designs by customizing construction and materials, anda “studio” approach has been incorporated into nearly one quarter of the classes for the course.This allows student groups to freely explore ideas and develop skills with supervisory assistancefrom the
the integration of academic subjectmatter with service to the community in credit-bearing courses, with key elements includingreciprocity, reflection, coaching, and community voice in projectsiv. Reflective activities helpstudents process their experience and gain insight into the service they perform, the concepts thatthey are reinforcing, and the connection between the twov,vi,vii. When S-L is used effectively inan academic class, students typically benefit in a number of important ways, includingmotivation for learning, teamwork, communication, synthesis of multiple technical concepts,understanding of engineering ethical responsibilities, and civic engagementi,ii,iii.As shown in Table 1, S-L can help educators to fulfill ABET Criterion 3
a. Mastery of the knowledge, techniques, skills, and modern i. An ability to understand professional, ethical, and
perceived as “real engineering”, which highlights an historically strong set of beliefs aboutpolitically or socially agnostic technical work coming into conflict with a systems approach [5](see also [11]).Riley et al. [12] point to limitations of service learning education in engineering generally, i.e.,limited student engagement with questions about the social, economic, and political interests metby the service learning framework. Relatedly, while Bielefeldt et al. [13] find that environmentalengineering faculty bring more topics about ethics and societal issues into their courseworkrelative to their peers in such fields as mechanical and civil engineering, they also find thatenvironmental engineering faculty perceive ethics and “broad impacts
engineering (b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data (c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability (d) an ability to function on multi-disciplinary 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
notexplicitly reflected in the rubric’s criteria. Specifically within the chemical engineering literature,many key themes were already reflected in the rubric, with the exception of uncertainty. Fromthe electrical and mechanical engineering literature, themes such as industrial ecology,technological adaptability, e-waste, and user experience were missing from the rubric. Inaddition, design for “X” (DfX) approaches, such as design for disassembly, were commonlydiscussed in the electrical and mechanical literature.3 Affordability and Ethics Innovation Equity (Across Disciplines
isparticularly suitable for implementation in engineering courses because its benefits are consistentwith student learning outcomes specified by the Accreditation Board for Engineering andTechnology (ABET), specifically the following strands from criterion 3 (ABET, 2015): (b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data; (c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet 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
to meet 7 outcomes.Outcome 4 states “Design appropriate solutions in one or more application domains usingsoftware engineering approaches that integrate ethical, social, legal, and economic concerns”. Itis through this outcome we expect students to design solutions that address ethical, social, legal,security, and economic concerns. The importance of security in the curriculum guidelines can benoted from the change in SE education Knowledge Areas. In the 2004 Curriculum Guidelines forUndergraduate Degree Programs in Software Engineering [4] security was listed as an area ofstudy. However in the 2014 Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs inSoftware Engineering [5] there is now an increase in the visibility of software
is resolved in favor of students’ learning, increasing thelikelihood that partner communities are left with inappropriate and unusable solutions.6To address these tensions and make sure that communities also benefit from these programs,many scholars have proposed elaborate frameworks and philosophical commitments toinform the practice of humanitarian engineering projects. For instance, Amadei andcolleagues published a model comprising 10 guiding principles for Sustainable HumanitarianEngineering projects. 9 The principles stress the importance of following ethical andprofessional codes and collaborating with a wide range of internal and external stakeholders.Another model for HE is Engineering for Social Justice (E4SJ)10 which provides six
Director of Research at the Troost Institute for Leadership Education in Engineering, University of Toronto. Her research interests include engineering leadership in university and workplace settings as well as ethics and equity in engineering education.Mr. Mike Klassen, University of Toronto Mike Klassen is PhD Candidate in Higher Education at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto. He was a long-time team member at the Institute for Leadership Education in Engineering (ILead). Mike has an MA in Higher Education and a BASc in Engineering Science from the University of Toronto.Jamie Ricci, Indspire Jamie Ricci is currently a researcher at Indspire, Canada’s largest charity supporting
glance, one mayassume that factors such as student aptitude (understanding engineering concepts) and work ethic(study and preparation skills) are the leading contributors to student attrition. However, the vastmajority of engineering students, whether they are aware of it or not, do certainly have the requiredaptitude to succeed (apparent in the fact that they met the engineering school admission criteria),and work ethic is a characteristic that all can attain (if they do not already have it). While thesepotential barriers of aptitude and work ethic surely play a role in effecting retention, modernresearch has shown that there are other individual constructs that not only play a very influentialrole in retention, but are even more meaningful
changes to the language and definitions pertaining to all Criteria heavily influenced the development ofPerformance Indicators and their subsequent Barometric Assessments. The most challenging aspects of this aredescribed below.The first is the definition, and rather inclusive aspects, of Engineering Design. The legacy student outcome (c) requiredthat engineering design, “meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social,political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability”. The use of the term “such as” as adeterminer indicates that only a subset of need and constraints is required. The new Student Outcome states,“engineering design solutions must meet specified needs with
ethical aspects of engineering design and practice, including Sci- ence, Technology, and Contemporary Issues; Technology and the Frankenstein Myth; The LEGO Course: c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Paper ID #30310Engineering Design and Values; STS and Engineering Practice; and The Engineer, Ethics, and Profes-sional Responsibility. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Communication across Divisions: Trends Emerging from the 2019 Annual Conference of ASEE and Some Possibilities for Strategic ActionAbstractThis paper extends
be able to identify what solutions it truly needs. If we are [u]nstable in how we are connected to ourselves and those immediately around us, it will be virtually impossible for us to do it to the entire world. These lessons of understanding human experiences from different perspectives, empathizing with them and considering them in the decisions we make is what will set us apart as conscious and ethical engineers that add positive value to the world.Perhaps the strongest statement about the need for empathy and reflection in engineering camefrom a student who asserted that these were the tools that could prevent engineering fromperpetuating deeply entrenched systems of discrimination in society
reject thescenario of maintaining the global status quo, what is our ethical responsibility? Do we sacrificeour standard of living and adopt lifestyles that use less energy? Do we replace current energyresources with ones that are renewable? Is it possible to do so and still consume the sameamount of energy? Or do we lead a global effort to develop political, technological, andeconomic strategies to ensure a more equitable energy distribution? Although these questionshave been addressed in a superficial manner, the faculty members would like to devote moretime in class exploring these issues, and they plan to invite guest speakers to talk aboutenvironmental ethics and social justice. ReferencesDeWaters
survey, two additionaltopics were added to the course. At the end of the course, the student’s RDM knowledge wasagain assessed for the same eight topics. These results are also in Figure 1.Figure 1: Assessment Results Assessment Results Data management planning Data archiving and preservation Data sharing and reuse Data legal and ethical concerns Data documentation and metadata Data storage, back-up, and security Data organization Data types and formats 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Post-Course Pre-CourseFigure 1: Pre- and post
Paper ID #17898An Evaluation of a Research Experience Traineeship (RET) Program for In-tegrating Nanotechnology into Pre-College CurriculumDr. Justin L Hess, Indiana University Purdue University, Indianapolis Dr. Justin L Hess is the Assistant Director of the STEM Education Innovation and Research Institute. In this role, Justin is working on improving the state of STEM education across IUPUI’s campus. Dr. Hess’s research interests include exploring empathy’s functional role within engineering and design; de- signing STEM ethics curricula; and evaluating students’ learning in the spaces of design, ethics, and
. Military Academy Dr. Brock E. Barry, P.E. is Professor of Engineering Education in the Department of Civil & Mechanical Engineering at the United States Military Academy, West Point, New York. Dr. Barry holds a Bachelor of Science degree from Rochester Institute of Technology, a Master of Science degree from University of Colorado at Boulder, and a PhD from Purdue University. Prior to pursuing a career in academics, Dr. Barry spent 10-years as a senior geotechnical engineer and project manager on projects through- out the United States. He is a licensed professional engineer in multiple states. Dr. Barry’s areas of research include assessment of professional ethics, teaching and learning in engineering
member of ASCE, a member of DBIA, Green Globes, and National Institute of Building Science. He is also a board member of USGBC Central California Chapter, and a Senior Fellow of the Environmental Leadership Program (ELP).Dr. Zhanna Bagdasarov, California State University - Fresno ”Dr. Zhanna Bagdasarov is an Assistant Professor of Management at California State University, Fresno. She received her Ph.D. in Industrial/Organizational Psychology from the University of Oklahoma. Her research interests focus on ethical decision making in organizational contexts, trust repair between leaders and subordinates, and the influence of emotions in the workplace. She has published her work in such outlets as Journal of Business
K12 institutions, libraries, and community centers, tomutually improve social, civic, and ethical problems around educational outcomes.Boundary Spanners, or individuals who act as knowledge and power brokers to helpestablish reciprocal relationships between a university and community, are fundamentalfor providing pathways for collaboration between the academy and society. Stakeholdersfrom University, Government, K12, Industry and Non-profit organizations wereinterviewed to determine how boundary spanners can be best utilized to facilitate andimprove engagement outcomes. Purposeful and snowball sampling was used to identifyinterview subjects resulting in N = 30 interviews; 16 of which represent the universityand 14 represent the stakeholders
, communication, computer aided design, ethics, andteamwork, are practiced continuously during these courses. Figure 1 enumerates the key aspectsof the curriculum, their explanations, and their student outcome reference on the AccreditationBoard of Engineering Technology (ABET) Criterion 3. 9 Page 26.1436.3 ABET ref. Curriculum Key Aspect Example activities Criteria •Students solve problems for clients from industry or non-profit organizations •Regular client meetings provide opportunities for students to receive E, C, Client-based and
, 2016 From Problem Solvers to Problem Seekers: The Necessary Role of Tension in Engineering EducationIn this paper it is proposed that the current focus on problems in engineering education andtechnological literacy may be more constructively reframed by focusing on tensions. PriyanDias claims engineering has an identity crisis that arises from tensions inherent in: 1) theinfluence of the profession on society, 2) the role engineers play, and 3) what constitutes validknowledge in engineering. These are ethical, ontological, and epistemological tensionsrespectively, which Dias frames as a tension between identities of homo sapiens and homo faber.Beyond the tensions in engineering there are additional tensions that arise
a humanities course, and the archivist fromNYU Libraries. This activity shows how liberal education can have a natural fit within theengineering curriculum. In particular, we wish to demonstrate how even a small-scale project,using available resources, will help to accomplish ABET Criterion 3: Student Outcomes.ABET’s Student Outcomes encourage engineering education to follow an active learning model,to discuss the social context and ethics of engineering solutions, and to develop skills of analysis,teamwork, and communication. Our archival interventions, though admittedly limited in scope,embody the principles ABET’s Student Outcomes. By working in groups with primary sourcematerials related to science and engineering, we encouraged
experience: Assistant Professor, Universidad Icesi, Graduate lectures includes: Life Cycle Analysis, Process Management, Methods Engineering (manufacturing and service industry) & Process Improvement. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 Developing Student Outcomes in Real-World Learning Experiences: The Case of the Solar Decathlon in Latin AmericaAbstractEngineering students face a future in which professional skills (e.g., working inmultidisciplinary teams, ethics, and communicate effectively) will be equallyimportant as hard skills (e.g., design systems and solve technical problems).However, the development and assessment of these skills by the time ofgraduation is still a challenge for
ethicsstatements, engineers identify service to humankind as their greater purpose. In other words,social responsibility lies at the core of the engineering profession. The social responsibility ofengineers is to carefully evaluate the full range of broader impacts of their designs on the health,safety, and welfare of the public environment. Half a century after the creed originated, ourworld is facing irreparable damage and destruction that has direct connections to andrepercussions from the consequences of engineering. More specifically, there was and continuesto be a lack of comprehensive engineering assessment of the societal, ethical, health and safety,environmental, political, and sustainability issues and a lack of systems thinking [9] that can
goodsbecause they are by definition both non-rivalrous and non-excludable. For example, sampleethics lessons from the National Academy of Engineering’s Online Ethics Center(www.onlineethics.org) might constitute a public good because one professor’s use of a samplelesson in their class does not prevent another professor’s use of that same lesson. Similarly, thematerials are publicly available and non-excludable as long as someone has internet access. Openenrollment public universities might also effectively meet these criteria (in relation to the localstates and regions they serve at low or no tuition), as long as the cost of attendance is keptsufficiently low so as not to be a barrier to entry, and education is delivered at such a scale thatnon