Connecting Engineering Ethics with a Shared Curriculum

Markus D. Ong; Kamesh Sankaran

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Portland, Oregon
Publication Date: June 23, 2024
Start Date: June 23, 2024
End Date: June 26, 2024
Conference Session: Broader Approaches to Engineering Ethics Education
Tagged Division: Engineering Ethics Division (ETHICS)
Page Count: 13
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--47064
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/47064
Download Count: 100

Paper Authors

biography

Markus D. Ong Whitworth University

visit author page

Dr. Markus Ong is an associate professor within the Department of Engineering & Physics at Whitworth University, located in Spokane, WA. He earned his PhD in materials science and engineering from Stanford University in 2008 and was a staff researcher developing and characterizing nanomaterials at Sandia National Laboratories in Livermore, CA before starting at Whitworth in 2010. His current teaching responsibilities primarily include lower division physics classes, materials and mechanics classes in the engineering major, and engineering design capstone projects.

visit author page

biography

Kamesh Sankaran Whitworth University

visit author page

Kamesh Sankaran is a Professor of Engineering and Physics at Whitworth University in Spokane, WA. He received his Ph.D. in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering from Princeton University. Prof. Sankaran has been on the faculty at Whitworth since 2004 where, in addition to serving as the chair of the Department of Engineering and Physics, he has also headed the university's general education requirement on applied ethics and policy since 2010.

visit author page

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

An ethics across the curriculum approach is often developed as either engineering faculty and students participating in an interdisciplinary effort or engineering departments implementing ethics education across multiple engineering classes. Most of the literature studying ethics across the curriculum focuses on institutions which do either the former or the latter, but not both simultaneously. However, assessment of student learning outcomes showed that if both approaches are used simultaneously and are purposefully connected with each other, the capacity of students to identify ethical systems and practical foundations for making judgments is improved, and students are better able to apply an ethical system to value judgments.

As part of an intermediate engineering design class, students were assigned an essay in which they connected engineering codes with a chosen system of ethics. The instructor assessment of the first iteration of this assignment noted that some students had difficulties describing the basic tenets of an ethical system beyond a single characteristic statement and often conflated their own personal lived ethic with a formal system of ethics. A revision to this assignment included requiring students to read briefings of several formal ethical systems. These briefings were excerpts from the assigned course pack from an ethics and policy class in the Core sequence, a set of worldview and ethics classes required for all students in the university and collectively taught by faculty from departments across the university, including engineering. This improved the students’ understanding of ethical systems and also reinforced concepts from Core. Outcomes were measured by ABET assessment tools developed by the department. The fraction of students that struggled to describe the basic tenets of an ethical system was reduced by a factor of three, and the fraction of students that could clearly support judgments with ethical tenets increased from 40% to 64%.

In addition to the pedagogical modification, several things enhanced the student learning experience that have implications for how educators and institutions can effectively deliver ethics education. First, having an assessment plan covers both microethics and macroethics encourages forming the connections between them. Second, a mindset of interconnectivity among classes is crucial. Third, participation from engineering department faculty in the general education components enables them to make these cross-curricular connections. Lastly, faculty mentoring and training help achieve this shared goal. Future directions could include making these intentional connections common throughout other classes in the engineering curriculum, including both studio design classes and engineering analysis classes.

Citation
Format

Ong, M. D., & Sankaran, K. (2024, June), Connecting Engineering Ethics with a Shared Curriculum Paper presented at 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Portland, Oregon. 10.18260/1-2--47064

TY - CPAPER
AB - An ethics across the curriculum approach is often developed as either engineering faculty and students participating in an interdisciplinary effort or engineering departments implementing ethics education across multiple engineering classes. Most of the literature studying ethics across the curriculum focuses on institutions which do either the former or the latter, but not both simultaneously. However, assessment of student learning outcomes showed that if both approaches are used simultaneously and are purposefully connected with each other, the capacity of students to identify ethical systems and practical foundations for making judgments is improved, and students are better able to apply an ethical system to value judgments.

As part of an intermediate engineering design class, students were assigned an essay in which they connected engineering codes with a chosen system of ethics. The instructor assessment of the first iteration of this assignment noted that some students had difficulties describing the basic tenets of an ethical system beyond a single characteristic statement and often conflated their own personal lived ethic with a formal system of ethics. A revision to this assignment included requiring students to read briefings of several formal ethical systems. These briefings were excerpts from the assigned course pack from an ethics and policy class in the Core sequence, a set of worldview and ethics classes required for all students in the university and collectively taught by faculty from departments across the university, including engineering. This improved the students’ understanding of ethical systems and also reinforced concepts from Core. Outcomes were measured by ABET assessment tools developed by the department. The fraction of students that struggled to describe the basic tenets of an ethical system was reduced by a factor of three, and the fraction of students that could clearly support judgments with ethical tenets increased from 40% to 64%.

In addition to the pedagogical modification, several things enhanced the student learning experience that have implications for how educators and institutions can effectively deliver ethics education. First, having an assessment plan covers both microethics and macroethics encourages forming the connections between them. Second, a mindset of interconnectivity among classes is crucial. Third, participation from engineering department faculty in the general education components enables them to make these cross-curricular connections. Lastly, faculty mentoring and training help achieve this shared goal. Future directions could include making these intentional connections common throughout other classes in the engineering curriculum, including both studio design classes and engineering analysis classes.
AU - Markus D. Ong
AU - Kamesh Sankaran
CY - Portland, Oregon
DA - 2024/06/23
PB - ASEE Conferences
TI - Connecting Engineering Ethics with a Shared Curriculum
UR - https://peer.asee.org/47064
DO - 10.18260/1-2--47064
ER -