Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 1357–1373 | Cite as

Teaching Engineering Ethics using BLOCKS Game

  • Shiew Wei Lau
  • Terence Peng Lian Tan
  • Suk Meng Goh
Original Paper

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the use of a newly developed design game called BLOCKS to stimulate awareness of ethical responsibilities amongst engineering students. The design game was played by seventeen teams of chemical engineering students, with each team having to arrange pieces of colored paper to produce two letters each. Before the end of the game, additional constraints were introduced to the teams such that they faced similar ambiguity in the technical facts that the engineers involved in the Challenger disaster had faced prior to the space shuttle launch. At this stage, the teams had to decide whether to continue with their original design or to develop alternative solutions. After the teams had made their decisions, a video of the Challenger explosion was shown followed by a post-game discussion. The students’ opinion on five Statements on ethics was tracked via a Five-Item Likert survey which was administered three times, before and after the ethical scenario was introduced, and after the video and post-game discussion. The results from this study indicated that the combination of the game and the real-life incident from the video had generally strengthened the students’ opinions of the Statements.

Keywords

Engineering ethics Design game Video Historical case-scenario 

References

  1. ABET. (2009). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs. http://www.abet.org/Linked%20Documents-UPDATE/Criteria%20and%20PP/E001%2010-11%20EAC%20Criteria%201-27-10.pdf. Accessed 3 August 2011.
  2. Billington, D. P. (2006). Teaching ethics in engineering education through historical analysis. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12, 205–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bowyer, K. W. (2001). “Star Wars” revisited—a continuing case study in ethics and safety-critical software. 31th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, F1D-7.Google Scholar
  4. Bredemeier, M. E., & Greenblat, C. S. (1981). The educational effectiveness of simulation games: A synthesis of findings. Simulation and Gaming, 12, 307–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bucciarelli, L. L. (1999). Design delta design: Seeing/seeing as. In Design thinking research symposium 4, Boston, pp. 23–25 April.Google Scholar
  6. Cannell, C. F., & Kahn, R. L. (1968). Interviewing. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology, 2: Research method. New York: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  7. Chung, C. A., & Alfred, M. (2009). Design, development and evaluation of an interactive simulator for engineering ethics education (SEEE). Science and Engineering Ethics, 15, 189–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Colby, A., & Sullivan, W. M. (2008). Ethics teaching in undergraduate engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 97, 327–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cruz, J. A., & Frey, W. J. (2003). An effective strategy for integrating ethics across the curriculum in engineering: An ABET 2000 challenge. Science and Engineering Ethics, 9, 543–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dorn, D. S. (1989). Simulation games: One more tool on the pedagogical shelf. Teaching Sociology, 17, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fleddermann, C. B. (2000). Engineering ethics cases for electrical and computer engineering students. IEEE Transactions on Education, 43, 284–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haywood, M. E., McMullen, D. A., & Wygal, D. E. (2004). Using games to enhance student understanding of professional and ethical responsibilities. Issues in Accounting Education, 19, 85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnson, W. R., Sieveking, N. A., & Clanton, E. S. I. I. I. (1974). Effects of alternative positioning of open-ended questions in multiple-choice questionnaires. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 776–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kline, R. R. (2001). Using history and sociology to teach engineering ethics. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, Winter, 2001(2002), 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kroesen, O., & van der Zwaag, S. (2010). Teaching ethics to engineering students: From clean concepts to dirty tricks. In I. van de Poel & D. E. Goldberg (Eds.), Philosophy and engineering, philosophy of engineering and technology 2 (pp. 227–237). Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 213–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 537–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuhn, J. W. (1998). Emotion as well as reason: Getting students beyond “interpersonal accountability”. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 295–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lawson, B. R. (1979). Cognitive strategies in architectural design. Ergonomics, 22, 59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lewis, S., van Hout, W., & Huang-Saad, A. (2010). 40th ASEE/IEEE frontiers in education conference.S3E−1.Google Scholar
  21. Lloyd, P., & van de Poel, I. (2008). Designing games to teach ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14, 433–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Loui, M. C. (2006). Assessment of an engineering ethics video: Incident at Morales. Journal of Engineering Education, 95, 85–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pritchard, M. S. (1992). Teaching engineering ethics a case study approach. http://ethics.tamu.edu/pritchar/an-intro.htm. Accessed 3 August 2011.
  24. Rabins, M. J. (1998). Teaching engineering ethics to undergraduates: Why? What? How? Science and Engineering Ethics, 4, 291–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Riley, K., Davis, M., Cox Jackson, A., & Maciukenas, J. (2009). Ethics in the details: Communicating engineering ethics via micro-insertion. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 52, 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schwarz, N., Hippler, H. J., & Noelle-Neumann, E. (1992). A cognitive model of response-order effects in survey measurement. In N. Schwarz, S. Sudman, & (Eds.), Context Effects in Social and Psychological Research. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Sharp, L. M., & Frankel, J. (1983). Respondent burden: A test of some common assumptions. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(1), 36–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Smith, T. W. (2003). Developing comparable questions in cross-national surveys. In J. A. Harkness, F. J. R. Van de Vijver, & P. P. Mohler (Eds.), Cross-cultural survey methods (pp. 69–92). New Jersey: Wiley.Google Scholar
  29. Van der Burg, S., & van de Poel, I. (2005). Teaching ethics and technology with Agora, an electronic tool. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11, 277–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shiew Wei Lau
    • 1
  • Terence Peng Lian Tan
    • 1
  • Suk Meng Goh
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Engineering and ScienceCurtin University Sarawak MalaysiaMiriMalaysia
  2. 2.Curtin Sarawak Research InstituteCurtin University Sarawak MalaysiaMiriMalaysia

Personalised recommendations