Program description: Over graduate and undergraduate students have taken the semester-long class. I started it 25 years ago as part of a software engineering class where students were asked to consider various ethical dilemmas that a software engineer might face and to decide how they would personally handle them. Students were first asked to create answers for themselves alone and later a class discussion was held to compare and discuss the alternatives. About 18 years ago I moved to the aerospace engineering department and the activity became a semester-long class that both considers engineering ethics related to safety and teaches how to build and operate safer systems.
Then the students discuss their answers in small groups the class has gotten too large to have full class discussions and report to the entire class on their discussions. Sometimes I organize a class debate with different people arguing the various sides of an issue. Students also read about the consequences of failures of engineering responsibility in loss of life, including a paper I wrote 30 years ago on the Therac 25 accidents, which has been reprinted in over 20 engineering ethics books, used in engineering ethics education, and even translated into Braille and sound recordings for the blind.
The rest of the class is spent learning safety engineering and applying it to accident investigation and accident prevention. Students have a semester project on a real system last semester it included power grids, automobile autonomy, the Iceland Blood Bank, air transportation systems, drones, manufacturing robots, and medical devices. In the projects, the students apply both engineering and ethical principles to the design, oversight regulation, for example , and operation of the system. I try to take examples from the newspaper throughout the semester unfortunately, it is not hard to find them and we discuss them and also have occasional guest lecturers who happen to be in town.
The course was originally a graduate class, but in the last two years I have taught an undergraduate version. Assessment information: Assessment is done through written assignments, class discussions, tests, and the semester-long project. Class evaluations by the students are always quite high. Although the class satisfies no requirements and is a pure elective, it grows each year and this year had over 50 students.
The students come from every department of the School of Engineering and students outside my department find out about it mostly through word of mouth. Ethics as Philosophical History for Engineers. Exemplary features: Unique topical focus on historical and mathematics- and physics-based dilemmas that tie back to modern day ethical challenges in math, physics, and engineering; micro-insertion technique.
Instead of relying solely on exposing students to a particular code of ethics, or on primarily reviewing engineering case studies of ethical situations, a topical history of philosophy and mathematics is presented in intermittent bursts of weekly storytelling that last 5 to 10 minutes with the intent of showing the evolution of ethics from antiquity to the present day.
Surveys before and after the class showed that the engineering students appreciated and benefited from the historical mathematical and philosophical focus on ethics, and that they fully appreciated the significant ethical challenges they will encounter. Comments labelled this approach as both interesting and unique. This is done by focusing on philosophical and mathematical topics familiar to the student and relating them to the evolution of our shared morality. The topics must have two primary characteristics.
First, their history must expose a positive and interesting relationship between a particular philosophy in a given era and the accompanying development of mathematics; for example, the relationship between the philosophy of Pythagoras and rational numbers in ancient Greek culture. Second, a chosen topic must be a link in the historical evolution of the ethical code that became widely accepted in Western culture after the Enlightenment; for example, the evolving concept of the number zero or of mathematical limits in parallel with the evolving primacy of scientific reasoning.
True stories and interesting cultural situations are used to highlight how prevailing norms of morality have evolved episodically in Western culture. The stories include the origins of cultural moral codes in the Axial Age; how Greek culture changed them; how they evolved into the ethics of the Enlightenment through the mathematics and philosophies of Galileo, Newton, Leibniz, and Spinoza; and finally, how today they precariously stand as ethical standards based on reason alone, presenting a serious challenge when viewed through the work of Immanuel Kant and John Locke.
The intent is to illustrate a few historical highlights with which students can immediately identify; to show how difficult it has often been in the past to maintain ethical integrity; and to emphasize the serious ethical challenges that will confront students in the uncertain future. This is the modern ethical conundrum, the moral challenge that confronts the current and probably the next generation.
If the supremacy of reason—both in science and in the conduct of human affairs—is a necessary condition for a moral and ethical society in the modern world, it remains an insufficient one. This internal acceptance of ethical standards implants within oneself what has traditionally been called the conscience, the essence of personal integrity. There remains the danger of overconfidence. The caution urged by G.
Melvil Decimal System: 620.0023
But, above all, they will worship the strongest thing in the world. Assessment information: Assessment of the team project is done by the clients and by the professor. We also collect individual essays in the first week about ethical issues in software design and compare them with essays done in the last week. Current engineering achievements and disasters are considered in light of past failures, allowing students to both explore historical ethical decisions and see these issues echoed in current engineering challenges.
Engineers benefit from the ability to take the view of a nonengineer, develop empathy, and think divergently, facilitated by the ethical discussion in environments where other majors both STEM and non-STEM are engaged. This exposure to ethical constructs and problem solving for first-year engineers is critical to supporting future modules of engineering ethics in later major courses that build on this solid foundation to provide vertically integrated learning.
Program description: Engineering a Catastrophe is offered as part of the one-credit Byrne Freshman Seminar program at Rutgers University. The seminar is intended to provide a broad introduction to ethics through discussions and writing assignments focused on case studies of engineering catastrophes, meeting once a week for 90 minutes, and to encourage students in college-level critical thinking skills.
The main goal of the seminar is to engage first-year STEM students to discuss ethics from an engineering perspective, give them tools beyond their intuition, and assist them in their transition to college-level academic work. Students are introduced to a risk assessment—based approach to ethical decision making. This approach incorporates basic questions of risk-benefit analysis with information on the decision makers, constraints and context, and implementation of the system. This simplified framework allows students to more easily explore complex catastrophes from multiple points of view and to draw parallels with current technological issues, with these skills significantly improving over the course of the semester.
The course is described broadly to attract engineering, STEM, and nontechnical majors. This seminar is designed to explore both the engineering and cultural implications of recent and historical disasters with examples taken from natural e. Students are guided to learn and discuss which factors led to these cataclysmic events and how engineering development, public policy, and society have responded. To focus on the relevance of the course to future events, readings and discussions center on how advances in engineering both solve current problems and cause new issues and unforeseen complications.
The educational goals of the course are to understand a the factors that lead to an engineering catastrophe human, economic, social, safety, environmental ; b ethics and ethical behavior in engineering practice; and c how decisions throughout the engineering design and implementation processes affect the failure modes of a system. Students consider current engineering achievements in light of historical failures. A case study is used to direct the ethical discussions. However, instead of focusing on individual catastrophes, discussion topics attempt to weave several events together to create a coherent story about a single issue.
For example, a typical discussion of human factors and how safety is managed in large organizations centers on how initially harmless technical or managerial decisions can grow and propagate throughout a project, eventually leading to failure. This typical topic for ethical analysis is usually framed around a single event like the faulty oxygen cylinder on Apollo 13 ; but the approach in this seminar frames the topic around a single issue the transport of pure oxygen with a multiplicity of historical and modern examples.
Short histories are given of relevant historical space and aviation events involving oxygen transport followed by a discussion of the transportation of lithium batteries. Parallels are drawn between the historical oxygen-related tragedies and current issues associated with aviation battery systems and battery transport. The description largely focuses on why these types of similar events keep occurring throughout history even though the engineering community is aware of the attendant problems.
Before the open discussion, two writing prompts are given for each topic for the students to consider individually and then in small groups. Writing prompts typically focus the students on the both the societal implications of catastrophes [A-type questions] and the personal ethical. The same strategies have been employed in courses at Lafayette College.
For examples: [A] When US companies work in a global marketplace, whose laws prevail? Who takes responsibility? The success of such discussions and directed writings require the students to have reasonably well developed ethical analysis skills. First-year students experience difficulty in objectively assessing the events leading up to these incidents with their hindsight and knowledge of the consequences.
Therefore, a framework using a risk-benefit analysis with which the students are somewhat familiar and an ethical audit are used to give the students some constraints with which to approach their exploration. Students are instructed to evaluate hazards both in and out of the technical realm. Discussion of uncertainty in engineering design and operation is balanced with estimation of nonroutine operation, historical failures, managerial complications, and consequence potential.
Hazards are then folded into a risk profile with sufficient resolution for the students to capture the most important and provocative hazards. Finally, the original risk-benefit analyses of each catastrophe are outlined such that the students can appreciate that well-developed foresight in a large, complex system is very difficult to achieve. With additional evaluative tools students discover a greater ability to personally relate to complex ethical decisions inherent in the more complicated case studies. They find comfort in defending their risk profiles and analyses rather than relying on and upholding their own personal opinions.
Using these tools, their discussions and papers present a more nuanced and enlightened approach to the discussion of the acceptability of risk. With this better understanding of risk, students have a larger appreciation for the difficulties of the ethical decision making process. Assessment information: Assessment of this course is done through student surveys using a typical Likert scale and by evaluating student work from the earlier and latter parts of the semester. Students report high levels of satisfaction with the class discussions 4.
Students report that the course inspired them to think in new ways 4. Assessment of written student work is performed using a rubric that evaluated their early in-class writing assignments and their final risk assessment papers. The seminar is a one-unit course, so the number of out-of-class writing assignments is kept to a minimum. The initial writing assignment is geared toward a risk assessment analysis of cheating on exams at the college level.
A short lecture in the introductory class introduces the students to the tenets of risk assessment. Students are tasked with explaining the ethical concerns by viewing the risks and benefits from many perspectives their current standing, their future, parents, professors, school administrators, future employers, and alumni. Their papers are evaluated on the depth of their exploration of the ethics of professionalism and their ability to identify motivations of each of the stakeholders. The final risk assessment paper is a detailed examination of a catastrophe that was related to one examined during the seminar but not specifically discussed.
Example subjects of final student papers are typhoons in the Philippines, postearthquake structural failures in China and Haiti, vaccinations and the swine flu pandemic, and drone aircraft. Students are asked to analyze these potential catastrophes in light of the historical case studies presented in class, applying the risk assessment tools developed during the seminar. Final papers are judged using the same rubric as the initial writing assignment. Phenomenological Approach to Engineering Ethics Pedagogy. I developed a phenomenology-informed approach to ethics pedagogy in which students undertake research that investigates the question, What is it to be an ethical engineer?
The coursework is interactive and emphasizes ethics in real-world, lived, everyday engineering practice. Students investigate their roles as engineering citizens from macro- and microethics perspectives and develop an affective engagement with study of ethical engineering practice. In other words, they begin to care about ethics and this helps maximize their learning. Students demonstrate not only significantly improved ethical reasoning and decision-making skills but a deeper reflective understanding versus rote knowledge of their professional and ethical responsibilities.
This approach is transferable to graduate students and is scalable and replicable. Program description: I have learned that undergraduate engineering students who are nearing graduation are unprepared for and fearful of facing the myriad ethical challenges present in 21st century engineering practice. There is a critical gap between what students need and what we offer.
- Engineering and Social Justice (Synthesis Lectures on Engineers, Technology and Society).
- Engineering and Social Justice: By Donna Riley | eBay.
- Engineering and Society: Working Towards Social Justice | ScienceBlogs!
- Engineering And Social Justice / Edition 1.
- Engineering and Social Justice;
- Synthesis Lectures on Engineers, Technology and Society.
- Morgan and ClayPool Synthesis Digital LIBRARY?
While we educators are concerned with imparting ethical knowledge—codes, ethical theories, decision-making models applied to case studies—our students are concerned with understanding how they are going to fit into the world of engineering as ethically competent professionals when they make the leap from undergraduate student to practicing engineer.
We must fill this gap if we expect our students to graduate with an understanding of their professional and ethical responsibilities. Phenomenology is the study of human meaning from the standpoint of experience. It discloses the essences of human experiences to yield a better understanding of these experiences, to capture how it is to do or experience something and what that experience means to the persons experiencing and studying it. Importantly, phenomenology is grounded in the real, lived world of everyday human experience, not in abstract theory that seeks to explain how things are or should be.
Phenomenology is particularly useful to study professional experience. Simply put, engineering ethics will be more meaningful to students if they study it in the context of everyday engineering work. The two principal educational goals of my class are for students to 1 recognize the values embodied in the professional code of ethics for engineers and understand how these values influence actual personal and professional ethical decision making, and 2 have an understanding of their professional and ethical responsibilities.
I had to design and test my own model for my one-credit, level, elective course, Ethics in Engineering Design. Students undertake three core research activities: 1 They examine their own values and the values that inform professional codes and ethical theories. Though generally not made explicit, ethical engineering practice is inherently concerned with values and value judgments.
Values—even for professionals in a technical practice—are fundamental, familiar, and everywhere. These interviews are the single most influential activity undertaken by the students.
The impact of this one-on-one experience cannot be reproduced in a textbook. This is where students gain a truer perspective on the ethical environment and issues they will face in practice and where many of the misconceptions about ethical engineering practice are debunked. Students routinely report that this is the activity they most dreaded but ultimately the one that was the most rewarding.
Topics addressed include technology and the ethical engineer, sustainability and ethical engineering, roles of engineers in policy development, comparative global ethical practice and identity, and alternatives to traditional professional ethics deliberation. Students must ask how each article informs them about what it is to be an ethical engineer.
It is important to review these articles each year,. Notably absent from this curriculum is the traditional case study ubiquitously used to teach engineering students how to apply ethics knowledge. My own students express this fear but report that their research interviews usually reveal the myth is unfounded and not representative of actual engineering practice.
A better approach to case studies is needed, especially when engineering problems with ethical implications cannot be solved by science alone. My students consider, for example, how ethical engineers could use rhetorical deliberation to reveal otherwise unconsidered options in these cases. On completion, my students are affectively engaged in their work and demonstrate improved ethical reasoning skills and understanding of their professional and ethical responsibilities.
Assessment information: I assessed student learning outcomes for 3 years using both quantitative and qualitative methods. Quantitatively, I used the Defining Issues Test-2 DIT-2 , a measure of ethical reasoning skills frequently used in engineering ethics education research. It is a multiple choice test with five nonengineering-specific scenarios presenting various ethical dilemmas.
My students took the test in week 1 and after week In mean N2 test scores increased My students usually started the course with mean test scores lower than their peers, but their scores improved significantly each year to exceed those of their engineering peers and to approximate their nonengineering peers. In their post-test scores exceeded not only their engineering and nonengineering peers but also national norms for graduate students. This increase may be attributable in part to the individual meetings I added to the curriculum in These meetings promote student affective engagement, a known contributor to improved student learning outcomes.
Thus, the combination of a phenomenological approach to ethics education and attention to affective engagement enables students in this one-credit course to significantly improve their ethical reasoning skills. Although the student numbers are small 20, 20, 13 , the annual improvement in results is consistent. These students are not self-selected for their commitment to ethics. Annual surveys show that nearly all take this class because they need one credit to graduate, not because of the ethics content. I used a qualitative philosophical hermeneutic approach which looks for evidence of understanding to assess whether my students expressed an understanding of their professional and ethical responsibility in their final essays and found that each student has a personal view of what it is to be an ethical engineer.
They appreciate and understand the complex nature of ethical decision making and that it often involves tradeoffs in values, not tidy win-win solutions. They remain ambivalent about the relationship between technology and being an ethical engineer, but they do understand that engineering practice and ethical decision making occur in and are relevant to broader social contexts beyond the laboratory. These students will be less surprised by the ethical problems they encounter in practice and better prepared than most of their peers to deliberate them.
These findings were reviewed and affirmed by a panel of practicing engineers. Conlon E, Zandvoort H. Broadening ethics teaching in engineering: Beyond the individualistic approach. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 2 — Journal of Advanced Nursing 37 3 — Corporate Social Responsibility Course. The growing significance of these industries poses special challenges for engineers from a variety of disciplines seeking to work at the intersection of corporate interests, public welfare, environmental sustainability, and professional autonomy. Yet practicing engineers report that their training in these areas occurs at work, rather than in their undergraduate study.
This course addresses that gap by using social science research, lectures from practicing engineers, and real-world group projects to help students understand and question the links between engineering and social responsibility, laying the groundwork to become agents of social responsibility in corporations that must deal with wicked problems. Program description: Corporate social responsibility CSR , as a contested and evolving field of practice, has become the dominant framework to understand and address the social and environmental impacts of many industries, from manufacturing to pharmaceuticals.
The term first arose in mining, oil, and gas companies seeking to allay public outcry over human and environmental disasters, and quickly expanded into other sectors. The field of CSR is internally varied, but policies and activities under its umbrella all share an acknowledgment that corporations must address the social and environmental impacts of their activities and improve their relationships with wider publics.
CSR is not a panacea for reconciling ethics with economics, nor a disingenuous attempt to cover up the continued ills of irresponsible business practice. It is an increasingly influential suite of practices, concepts, organizations, and institutional frameworks that have transformed the ways firms organize both their internal activities and their relationships with external entities such as government agencies, activist groups, and community stakeholders.
Although CSR policies and programs shape the work done by practicing engineers, very few undergraduate educational experiences help engineering students critically investigate the strengths and limitations of CSR as a tool to manage the social and environmental impacts of their work as engineers. This upper-division course prepares students to 1 understand what CSR as a field of practice means for differently positioned actors companies, employees, communities, etc. Case studies draw from the mining and energy industries, which pioneered CSR tools in response to critics, and class activities draw out comparisons and potential applications to other industries.
Course readings include social science articles that identify the key elements of CSR and compare the policies, programs, and projects enacted under this banner with other frameworks to conceptualize the relationship between industry and its publics, such as state regulation, voluntary agreements and conventions such as those promoted by the ISO and United Nations , and legal tools such as Free, Prior and Informed Consent.
The articles include cutting-edge scholarly research on CSR and detailed case studies, such as the evolution of community referendums at the controversial Marlin gold mine in Guatemala or foiled attempts at community development in the gas fields of Bangladesh. Guest lectures from industry and NGO professionals with on-the-ground experience provide opportunities for students to see CSR as a dynamic and contested field of practice that is shaped by individuals such as themselves. The goal of this section is to prepare students to think critically about the strengths and limitations of CSR to address the ethical dilemmas posed by industry, given that CSR is a voluntary set of practices, guided by private interests and organizations that sometimes intersect with government mandates and professional codes of conduct.
They explore how the rise of offshore oil production, for example, has affected corporate-community-government relations in Africa and the North Sea, or how the design of open-pit mines engenders chronic injuries among miners. These perspectives examine the implications of technical design and decision making for social and environmental justice, expanding engineering ethics beyond the microscale to encompass pressing macro-level concerns. The final week invites students to consider and share how CSR lives in their own disciplines and future careers, investigating how the particular material, social, environmental, and economic elements of nonextractive industries create different sources of conflict as well as potential tools for resolution.
A series of small assignments culminate in student groups producing an original, researched stakeholder engagement strategy for a real-world engineering project. They then link their project with course readings to write an essay addressing the following: Was it possible to craft a stakeholder engagement plan that fully reconciled the needs and interests of the corporation and its stakeholders?
Why or why not? What does your answer to those questions suggest about the strengths and limitations of CSR? What does your experience suggest about the role engineering should play in CSR or other frameworks for corporate-community engagement? The final project challenges students to apply course concepts to novel contexts and create new knowledge about engineering and social responsibility in relation to corporate programs, professional codes of conduct, government standards, international conventions, and community organizing.
The questions, activities, and discussions throughout the course provide a foundation for future engineers to navigate the ethical challenges underlining even the most vexing of wicked problems. Assessment information: The newness of the course precludes long-term assessment, but initial student outcomes and the growing reach of the course indicate positive results in student learning and engagement. In addition to the final project, student learning is assessed on Analytic Reading Memos, which challenge students to distill, critique, and extend the main argument of a scholarly reading; oral presentations; a synthesizing midterm essay; and an in-class debate.
Progress over the course as a whole is measured through pre- and postessays in which students respond to the following questions: Do corporations have responsibilities to society? If you think they do, what are those responsibilities? What role does engineering play in relation to fulfilling those responsibilities?
Comparing the pre- and postcourse essays reveals significant expansion in what students view as the domain of CSR; increased complexity in defining and critiquing the term; and more sophisticated understanding of its relationship with engineering. For example, the majority of students initially flag only environmental performance as a contribution of engineering to CSR, leaving aside community development, but end the course identifying how even the most minute engineering decisions impact the wider well-being of communities.
Perhaps the strongest testament to the course is the expansion of its core topics throughout CSM. Professor Smith gives an invited lecture on CSR each semester to Nature and Human Values, a required first-year ethics and writing course, and will lecture in the senior seminars in both Mining and Petroleum Engineering.
The success of the course has resulted in the creation of an additional upper-division course that addresses social responsibility and engineering for natural resource development in indigenous communities. It will then use these data to integrate a critical perspective on CSR into engineering as well as social science and humanities courses at Mines, Virginia Tech, and Missouri University of Science and Technology. Finally, the course inspired the vision for the ongoing planning of a new institute at CSM dedicated to socially responsible engineering, which would be the first of its kind.
Many of these students come into the class already having had an engineering co-op experience, and we ask them to share their stories about ethical dilemmas they have faced in the workplace. We put them in small groups of 4—5 and they come to consensus on the most compelling, most troubling, most complex ethical dilemma; they write up the case and give a presentation to the class about it, with at least three or four options for resolving it.
Then they test their options using not only the NSPE Code of Ethics but also an ethical decision-making model that includes moral tests. Finally, they explain how they would communicate their solution to necessary stakeholders. Program description: Undergraduate students and faculty participate in these presentation sessions. Our educational goals are to ensure that students are reflecting on their work experiences in thoughtful ways and to have them articulate the ethical dilemmas that can arise in workplace contexts, solve those dilemmas in a constructive environment, work through conflict within the team, and learn to moderate a discussion about ethical issues with their peers in the class.
We believe this exercise can help prepare students for the ethical challenges they will face and, ultimately, improve their leadership skills. Choose one that the whole team feels is worth sharing with the class. Be sure you reach consensus on the case. Prepare about a minute discussion that covers the details below. Be sure each member of the team has something worthwhile and significant to say to the class as part of this assignment. Prepare to ask questions and involve the audience, and expect to be asked questions.
Please leave company names out and any identifying information, but give us some generic information so we understand the purpose of the company and the roles of the stakeholders there. Describe who is involved in the decision, who might be affected, and any preexisting tensions or pressures that we need to know about with these different stakeholders. Articulate why it is an ethical dilemma, not just a technical problem.
What is the nature of the dilemma? Were any elements unknown or uncertain to different stakeholders at the time, which may have had a bearing on the dilemma? Provide us with a range of potential, realistic behaviors, not just the options you have predetermined are ethical. Use an explicit reference to the tests above and references to any relevant part of the NSPE Code available at the course homepage.
Did your team reach consensus on the solution, or have no consensus? Describe your next steps, and be clear about how you would communicate your resolution of the case, and to whom. What could have been done differently that might have helped people avoid the whole. Tips on the Presentation Itself : Distribute the work evenly. Break up the work reasonably so that everyone has something valuable to say, with roughly equivalent time to say it.
Time your team members and keep your own team on track. Visuals should follow our guidelines for strong visuals. Powerpoint is allowed to help your team anchor the discussion; be sure we understand the background on the case, your options, your analysis, and your solution. The maximum number of slides for this presentation is seven, including the title slide.
MDS: | LibraryThing
Delivery matters—we do not want you to read to us. Talk to us and use effective emphasis and a natural style—use this experience to grow more effective as a speaker in front of the class. Are assumptions carefully analyzed? Are reasonable negative ramifications anticipated? Reasonable management of ethical dissent? Exemplary features: Use of care ethics in engineering education and teaches learning how to listen. In addition to lectures, they collaborate via Skype with community members to develop solutions.
The regular connection with India exposes them to the reality of ethical challenges in engineering practice. A combination of experiential learning, active reflection, interdisciplinary readings, and community interaction makes students aware of the ethical implications of engineering work and of their responsibility as engineers, but instead of feeling burdened this class offers them the discourse of care as a means to navigate and practice their ethics.
The course is low-budget and has a deep impact on students who have continued to engage in research for years after the class. Engineering for underserved communities has frequently imposed solutions that have proved successful in prosperous countries but that fail to have the desired impact on impoverished communities. Local conditions, both environmental and cultural, affect the solutions and their efficacy.
Attempted solutions that do not incorporate local support or take into account the aspirations of the local community do not last. This has also become apparent in the growing literature on engineering for development and social justice.
- The Globalization of Inequality.
- The entropy of hydrogen.
- Managerial Issues in Productivity Analysis.
- Lectures on Social Justice!
GEE addresses this challenge by blurring the distinction between the student engineers in their role as solution providers and the underserved community in their role as consumers of the engineering solution. The engineering students are as much consumers as the underserved community members are designers and architects of the solution and the experience of creating it together. The aim is to educate student engineers to work with rather than for the underserved communities. GEE currently focuses on the systematic, complex, and existential problem of lack of sanitation and hygiene facilities faced by 2.
The course addresses education, safety, and dignity while enabling better hygiene and health monitoring by making the toilet a desirable, affordable, and the preferred alternative to open defecation, starting with field sites in rural India. The course is geared toward undergraduates and has attracted students from different engineering disciplines as well as nonengineering majors. The GEE curriculum fosters collaboration through three unique elements:. The GEE course has two lecture hours, a weekly Skype call with field partners in India, and weekly team meetings with the instructor.
It also has a strong reflection component as students maintain daily reflection journals. In class students discuss literature from different disciplines such as economics, sociology, and gender studies. They share new facts they have learned as well as what they felt the authors of the papers cared about and why. Class discussions focus on discerning the methods followed, the theories that the papers built on, and most importantly how the insights from the papers reshaped or affected the problem space. Through the readings, the students are encouraged to add detail and gradually expand the complexity of the problem space.
This approach exposes students to think more broadly about not only the technical aspects of their design but also the societal, environmental, ethical, and other implications. It trains them to be mindful of the different stakeholders and an appreciation for where. The class follows the Stanford process closely but is differentiated by the fact that, before commencing the designing itself, the GEE team members reflect on and articulate what each of them personally cares about in the challenges faced by the underserved community.
This serves as their point of view for the remainder of the design process. It becomes a method for balancing the need to provide immediate assistance with the ability to thoughtfully create breakthrough engineering solutions collaboratively with the community. The care statements are individually created as a combination of visuals and text.
The process does not require building consensus or arriving at one point that the GEE team collectively cares about; rather, individual members of the ecology are responsible for ensuring that what they care about is represented in their design solution. The ecology collectively agrees to create a solution that embodies what each member cares about. This approach ensures that the community continues to stay engaged in the process. It also prevents reducing the input received from the community to mere facts and instead ensures continuity of community engagement as they continue to share what they care about and why.
By sharing stories and their lived experiences they contribute to coming up with design requirements, constraints, and ideas. The course has served as a starting point for a sustained dialogue and inquiry into how to be a good engineer and how to navigate the complex and often burdensome ethical situations that one encounters in engineering practice. The discourse of care and reflecting on care statements has proven to be an effective means for students to persevere in their reflections and develop a personal sense of ethics that is consistent with the global ethics of engineering.
The course also allows students to appreciate the importance of research in improving engineering practice. Several students from the class have continued working on their inquiry, developed research projects, and coauthored papers t d t th ASEE f. Assessment information: To measure the effectiveness of the curriculum, a metric called Global Preparedness Efficacy GPE is being developed see link below. By bringing a Deweyan lens we can see these moments as opportunities for learning provided there are means to restore active engagement active doing by the students.
GPE is the ratio of resolved to total discontinuity events and reflects the ability to navigate the complexity and novelty of the problem space and to create solutions to the problem at hand consistent with the global socioeconomic, political, and cultural realities. In addition to the metric, the fact that students engage with the course contents for several years after they have taken the course is a significant indicator of having achieved the goal: Students have shared anecdotes, written conference papers, added minors to their engineering degrees, and write their undergraduate thesis on subjects that they care about, articulating how their exposure to using the discourse of care to develop a personal sense of ethics has served them in navigating their undergraduate life and studies.
Exemplary features: Use of alumni mentors; integration with engineering projects. Alumni of Terrascope thus come to see ethical practices and issues as fundamental to any problem they take on, rather than an afterthought or external requirement. Another exemplary aspect of the program is the way it empowers students to take control of their learning process, shaping goals and problems as they proceed. Finally, the program provides students with the opportunity to work on real-world, complex problems during their first year at MIT, a time when most of their other classes focus on acquiring the tools to do great things at some future time.
Program description: Terrascope is a freshman learning community at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in which students take on complex, real-world problems in a radically student-driven, project-based, team-oriented setting. The primary participants are first-year students, but upperclassmen continue to participate as undergraduate teaching fellows and mentors. Other participants include faculty, teaching staff, librarians, and alumni mentors.
The educational goals are to prepare students to take on big problems that involve ethical, political, economic, and social factors as well as scientific and technological ones; empower students to take charge of their educational experience; give students the opportunity to do important and creative work during their first year of college; enable students to understand the social, ethical, and political contexts in which their more technical work will take place; and provide students with the tools to work in diverse teams on large projects. In the fall semester students take Solving Complex Problems, in which they are given one big problem, as a class, and told that they have a semester to solve it.
They always involve environmental questions and are real-world problems that must be addressed by society. Students form teams around different components of the problem and, with facilitation by undergraduate teaching fellows and aid as required from librarians and alumni mentors, they work on a comprehensive solution. Their first deliverable is a website that describes their solution in technical detail. Their other deliverable is a public event in which they present and defend their solution before a panel of global experts. This class gives students the opportunity to take part immediately in implementing solutions to the problems they have studied and also to participate in a formal design and fabrication process.
The format and content are up to students to decide, and shows have ranged from documentaries to magazine-style programs to radio dramas. In producing the program they also develop a deeper sense of the broader aspects of the problem and its context. The trip provides deeper, contextualized learning to complement the learning done back on campus. Especially telling is the question-and-answer period of the defense, usually 2 hours following an hour-long presentation , during which panelists grill the freshmen on both general and detailed aspects of their work.
Students and panelists alike are generally amazed at the depth of knowledge and sensitivity the students have acquired in just one semester. Similarly, programs produced in Terrascope Radio have been licensed and broadcast by more than a hundred stations across the country, testifying to the effectiveness with which students have learned to communicate these important issues to the public. Perhaps most importantly, we observe the work students do in later years, after having participated in Terrascope. They tend to be campus leaders in big projects that take on difficult societal problems, eagerly seeking out challenging issues to address.
For these students, prepared by their Terrascope experience, ethical and societal issues are at the core of their objectives and practice, motivating and shaping the work they do. Lectures and readings by diverse experts in fields ranging from anthropology and history to nanotechnology and nuclear engineering emphasize the social, cultural, political, and moral context of engineering. Research and writing assignments require students to apply ethical theories as parts of solutions to real-world engineering cases and problems.
Students use strategies of negotiation and mediation to help stakeholders make decisions about the ethical use and deployment of engineering designs and technologies. Program description: Nature and Human Values gives students ethical preparation for their engineering practice by highlighting ways that new technologies and engineering feats are changing people, society, and culture; exploring the evolving definitions of nature and the environment and how they impact human interactions and occupations; and emphasizing the obligation to forge ethical solutions to debates that acknowledge the values of all stakeholders.
Participants include eight full-time faculty in the Division of Liberal Arts and International Studies, 4—5 adjunct faculty, and the director and assistant director of the division. Each year about 1, students take the course, most of whom are freshmen. The course has its own textbook, written and edited by its faculty, containing common readings and content related to engineering, ethics, and communication.
Each week, all students attend a large-group lecture and also engage in 3 hours of seminar-style learning in smaller classes. They write three papers of escalating complexity throughout the semester, using skills in summary, analysis, synthesis, argumentation, and research, which culminate in the writing and presentation of a mediated solution to an unresolved debate regarding engineering and ethics. Students take a common final exam that tests their understanding of and ability to apply ethical theories in context. Assessment information: The final paper grades and exam allow us to determine whether students a are able to apply ethical theories to real-life situations and b understand the broader social, environmental, and cultural contexts of engineering ethics.
We adjust lectures and readings according to their performance on these measures. Students are ranked from 1 Lacking to 4 Advanced for each of these outcomes, which we use to inform our curricular development of this foundational level course. NHV textbook: www. Exemplary features: Deeply embedded ethics education that is integrated through a multiyear program. Civil Engineering faculty, guided by our ABET assessment framework, advance student development in ethics, global, and cross-cultural issues that are tied specifically to the civil engineering profession through assignments and other curricular experiences that are regularly assessed and improved.
Leadership and ethical development are cornerstones of the USCGA education and the civil engineering faculty, like all faculty across campus, are charged with ensuring that upon graduation, each student has developed into a leader of character. The combination of core courses, major-specific engineering courses, and cocurricular activities provides students with opportunities to develop leadership and professional ethical conduct required for engineering practice and service as Coast Guard officers. Program description: During their sophomore year, civil engineering students take the Leadership and Organizational Behavior 3 credits course in which they are exposed to fundamental leadership and management concepts.
Some of the concepts discussed include values and ethics, personality, self-awareness, working in teams, motivation, and setting a vision, with particular emphasis on practical leadership implications. As juniors, civil engineering students take required core courses such as Morals and Ethics 3 credits and Criminal Justice 3 credits.
As seniors, they study Maritime Law Enforcement 3 credits. The Morals and Ethics course includes two main components: 1 ethical theories, both historical and contemporary, with arguments for and against them; and 2 applied ethics, both in general and using case studies in a specific field. Throughout the semester, students examine a range of philosophical views about what makes actions right or wrong, characters good or bad, to develop their decision-making abilities, their own moral voice, and an appreciation for the place of reasoned argument in the treatment of ethical problems.
Ethical and global issues are also progressively woven into the major-specific civil engineering courses. Some examples of how professional ethics are emphasized throughout the civil engineering curriculum are highlighted below:. Following are samples of case study presentation topics:. Assessment information: USCGA has established a set of shared-learning outcomes for all academic programs that include leadership abilities; personal and professional qualities; the ability to acquire, integrate, and expand knowledge; effective communication; and the ability to think critically. The shared-learning outcomes are aligned with the ABET Student Outcomes, with specifically developed performance indicators related to ethics.
Faculty members have created assignments and rubrics to assess student progress and improve student development in professional ethics for each performance indicator. By integrating professional ethics development and assessment in the existing civil engineering assessment model, faculty have successfully threaded this competency into the curriculum using a sustainable and effective framework. For example, the performance indicators for two ABET student outcomes, 3f and 3h, are used to assess ethics and professional issues in the civil engineering curriculum.
Faculty members have crafted assignments and rubrics related to these performance indicators to ensure student development in ethical and global issues relating to civil engineering. Thresholds and performance targets were established for the successful achievement of the performance indicators, with different performance targets for exams and nonexam activities e. A course is classified as producing satisfactory student achievement on a performance indicator if it meets one or both of the following performance targets:.
This well-established ABET assessment system is used to evaluate student progress throughout the academic year and monitored at the end of course review, when assessment data on student performance are discussed for each course. To ensure continuous improvements, recommendations are documented for implementation during the next cycle of course offerings. Graduates of USCGA receive a degree and a commission as a Coast Guard officer: We are preparing students to provide engineering expertise while serving their mandatory 5-year commitment to the Coast Guard, and their ethics and leadership are continually service tested for a minimum of 5 years after graduation.
Exemplary features: Integration with co-op activities; ethics embedded in a multiyear required engineering program; use of real-world cases; strong evidence of success based on evaluation of learning. Students wrestle with ethical concepts as if they were the engineers facing each dilemma, learning strategies to recognize and weigh competing interests, identify their own biases, and anticipate the consequences of proposed courses of action. Lectures and discussions are led by faculty members who have many years of practicing civil engineering experience.
Program description: Our ethics education program is required for all civil engineering undergraduate students. The department typically graduates 80 to civil engineering students per year. Email address for updates. My profile My library Metrics Alerts. Sign in. Get my own profile Cited by View all All Since Citations h-index 22 16 iindex 43 Co-authors Alice L. Articles Cited by Co-authors. Synthesis Lectures on Engineers, Technology, and Society 3 1 , , Risk Analysis: An International Journal 23 2 , , Environmental Health Perspectives 8 , , Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 9 2 , Cambridge handbook of engineering education research, , Synthesis Lectures on Engineering 6 3 , , Leadership and Management in Engineering 8 1 , , Science and engineering ethics 19 1 , , Articles 1—20 Show more.
Help Privacy Terms. Designs on development: engineering, globalization, and social justice D Nieusma, D Riley Engineering Studies 2 1 , , Assessing elemental mercury vapor exposure from cultural and religious practices. Employing liberative pedagogies in engineering education D Riley Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 9 2 ,