Institutional Variations in Ethics and Societal Impacts Education: Practices and Sufficiency Perceptions Among Engineering Educators

Angela R. Bielefeldt; Madeline Polmear; Nathan E. Canney; Chris Swan; Daniel Knight

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Tampa, Florida
Publication Date: June 15, 2019
Start Date: June 15, 2019
End Date: June 19, 2019
Conference Session: Liberal Education/Engineering & Society Division Technical Session 2
Tagged Division: Liberal Education/Engineering & Society
Page Count: 17
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--32972
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/32972
Download Count: 713

Paper Authors

biography

Angela R. Bielefeldt University of Colorado, Boulder

visit author page

Angela Bielefeldt is a professor at the University of Colorado Boulder in the Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering (CEAE). She has served as the Associate Chair for Undergraduate Education in the CEAE Department, as well as the ABET assessment coordinator. Professor Bielefeldt was also the faculty director of the Sustainable By Design Residential Academic Program, a living-learning community where interdisciplinary students learn about and practice sustainability. Bielefeldt is also a licensed P.E. Professor Bielefeldt's research interests in engineering education include service-learning, sustainable engineering, social responsibility, ethics, and diversity.

visit author page

biography

Madeline Polmear University of Colorado, Boulder orcid.org/0000-0002-7774-6834

visit author page

Madeline Polmear is a PhD candidate in the Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering at the University of Colorado, Boulder. Her research interests include ethics education and the societal impacts of engineering and technology.

visit author page

biography

Nathan E. Canney CYS Structural Engineers Inc.

visit author page

Dr. Canney conducts research focused on engineering education, specifically the development of social responsibility in engineering students. Other areas of interest include ethics, service learning, and sustainability education. Dr. Canney received bachelors degrees in Civil Engineering and Mathematics from Seattle University, a masters in Civil Engineering from Stanford University with an emphasis on structural engineering, and a PhD in Civil Engineering from the University of Colorado Boulder.

visit author page

biography

Chris Swan Tufts University orcid.org/0000-0001-5670-8938

visit author page

Chris Swan is Dean of Undergraduate Education for the School of Engineering and an associate professor in the Civil and Environmental Engineering department at Tufts University. He has additional appointments in the Jonathan M. Tisch College of Civic Life and the Center for Engineering Education and Outreach at Tufts. His current engineering education research interests focus on community engagement, service-based projects and examining whether an entrepreneurial mindset can be used to further engineering education innovations. He also does research on the development of reuse strategies for waste materials.

visit author page

biography

Daniel Knight University of Colorado, Boulder

visit author page

Daniel W. Knight is the Program Assessment and Research Associate at Design Center (DC) Colorado in CU’s Department of Mechanical Engineering at the College of Engineering and Applied Science. He holds a B.A. in psychology from Louisiana State University, an M.S. degree in industrial/organizational psychology and a Ph.D. degree in education, both from the University of Tennessee. Dr. Knight’s research interests are in the areas of K-12, program evaluation and teamwork practices in engineering education. His current duties include assessment, team development, outreach and education research for DC Colorado's hands-on initiatives.

visit author page

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

This research aims to increase our understanding of institutional variations on the education of undergraduate engineering/computing students about ethics and societal impacts (ESI). In alignment with Input-Environment-Output models and Lattuca and Stark’s Academic Plan Model, it was expected that differences in institutional cultures could manifest in the ESI educational perceptions and practices of faculty. About 1400 engineering educators responded to an online survey in spring 2016. From among the responses, there were 22 institutions represented by 9 to 24 respondents who spanned 5 or more disciplines at each institution. There were not significant differences in the percentage of institutionally-grouped respondents who taught the majority of ESI-related topics (e.g. safety, environmental protection). However, institutional differences were found for a few ESI-related topics such as social justice (0 to 63%) and poverty (0-46%). These differences appear to reflect differences in institutional culture. Differences in the curricular models for ESI education were also evident among the 22 institutions; e.g., faculty awareness of ESI education via first-year design-focused courses, professional issues courses, and/or full courses on ethics varied. The percentage of the faculty who believed that undergraduate students in their program received sufficient education on ethics ranged from 90% of the faculty at one institution versus only 14% at another. At the two high and low ‘outlier’ institutions for ethics sufficiency ratings, mission and vision statements, institution level outcomes, and course requirements for undergraduates were explored using institutional artifacts. The institution with lowest sufficiency ratings did appear to integrate ethics education into its objectives and teaching within engineering less than the two institutions where the greatest percentage of faculty viewed ethics education in engineering as sufficient. However, at another institution where a low percentage (20%) of the faculty viewed undergraduate ethics education as sufficient, the institutional mission and integration of ethics education for engineers appeared strong. Therefore, it appeared that many faculty at that institution held high standards for sufficient ethics education. The results point to the importance of future qualitative research to explore the extent to which faculty perceive the culture of their institution, college/school of engineering, and/or engineering department as supportive of ESI education for undergraduate students.

Citation
Format

Bielefeldt, A. R., & Polmear, M., & Canney, N. E., & Swan, C., & Knight, D. (2019, June), Institutional Variations in Ethics and Societal Impacts Education: Practices and Sufficiency Perceptions Among Engineering Educators Paper presented at 2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition , Tampa, Florida. 10.18260/1-2--32972

TY - CPAPER
AB - This research aims to increase our understanding of institutional variations on the education of undergraduate engineering/computing students about ethics and societal impacts (ESI). In alignment with Input-Environment-Output models and Lattuca and Stark’s Academic Plan Model, it was expected that differences in institutional cultures could manifest in the ESI educational perceptions and practices of faculty. About 1400 engineering educators responded to an online survey in spring 2016. From among the responses, there were 22 institutions represented by 9 to 24 respondents who spanned 5 or more disciplines at each institution. There were not significant differences in the percentage of institutionally-grouped respondents who taught the majority of ESI-related topics (e.g. safety, environmental protection). However, institutional differences were found for a few ESI-related topics such as social justice (0 to 63%) and poverty (0-46%). These differences appear to reflect differences in institutional culture. Differences in the curricular models for ESI education were also evident among the 22 institutions; e.g., faculty awareness of ESI education via first-year design-focused courses, professional issues courses, and/or full courses on ethics varied. The percentage of the faculty who believed that undergraduate students in their program received sufficient education on ethics ranged from 90% of the faculty at one institution versus only 14% at another. At the two high and low ‘outlier’ institutions for ethics sufficiency ratings, mission and vision statements, institution level outcomes, and course requirements for undergraduates were explored using institutional artifacts. The institution with lowest sufficiency ratings did appear to integrate ethics education into its objectives and teaching within engineering less than the two institutions where the greatest percentage of faculty viewed ethics education in engineering as sufficient. However, at another institution where a low percentage (20%) of the faculty viewed undergraduate ethics education as sufficient, the institutional mission and integration of ethics education for engineers appeared strong. Therefore, it appeared that many faculty at that institution held high standards for sufficient ethics education. The results point to the importance of future qualitative research to explore the extent to which faculty perceive the culture of their institution, college/school of engineering, and/or engineering department as supportive of ESI education for undergraduate students.
AU - Angela R. Bielefeldt
AU - Madeline Polmear
AU - Nathan E. Canney
AU - Chris Swan
AU - Daniel Knight
CY - Tampa, Florida
DA - 2019/06/15
PB - ASEE Conferences
TI - Institutional Variations in Ethics and Societal Impacts Education: Practices and Sufficiency Perceptions Among Engineering Educators
UR - https://peer.asee.org/32972
DO - 10.18260/1-2--32972
ER -