Advertisement

Using Student Engagement to Relocate Ethics to the Core of the Engineering Curriculum

  • Mary E. SunderlandEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

One of the core problems with engineering ethics education is perceptual. Although ethics is meant to be a central component of today’s engineering curriculum, it is often perceived as a marginal requirement that must be fulfilled. In addition, there is a mismatch between faculty and student perceptions of ethics. While faculty aim to communicate the nuances and complexity of engineering ethics, students perceive ethics as laws, rules, and codes that must be memorized. This paper provides some historical context to better understand these perceptual differences, and suggests that curriculum constraints are important contributing factors. Drawing on the growing scholarship of student engagement approaches to pedagogy, the paper explores how students can be empowered to effect change in the broader engineering curriculum through engineering ethics. The paper describes a student engagement approach to pedagogy that includes students as active participants in curriculum design—a role that enables them to critically reflect about why ethics is a requirement. Including students in the process of curriculum design leads students to reframe ethics as an integrative tool with the capacity to bring together different engineering departments and build bridges to non-engineering fields. This paper argues that students can and should play an active and important role in relocating ethics from the periphery to the core of the engineering curriculum.

Keywords

Education History Pedagogy Student engagement 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to all of the engineering students who candidly shared their ideas, especially to Chris Merian, Rohit Upadhya, Brigette Badro, and Ricky Nolan, who originally proposed the DeCal idea, and to Alexandra Giesemann and Andrew Serpa who made the engineering ethics DeCal a reality. I am thankful to Ronald Gronsky, Mark Asta, and Wanda Capece from Berkeley’s Department of Materials Science & Engineering for supporting the DeCal. Thanks also to Mary Howell from Engineering Student Services for introducing me to Berkeley’s collection of course announcements and for helping me to navigate the engineering undergraduate curriculum. I appreciate the insightful and encouraging feedback that I received from three anonymous reviewers. This material is based upon work supported by a seed grant from the University of California, Berkeley College of Engineering and the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grant No. 1237830. Thanks to my NSF grant collaborators: Cathryn Carson, William Kastenberg, and Joonhong Ahn.

References

  1. Adams, R., Evangelou, D., English, L., Dias de Figueiredo, A., Mousoulides, N., Pawley, A. L., et al. (2011). Multiple perspectives on engaging future engineers. Journal of Engineering Education, 100, 48–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alpay, E. (2011). Student-inspired activities for the teaching and learning of engineering ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics,. doi: 10.1007/s11948-011-9297-8.Google Scholar
  3. Baillie, C., & Catalano, G. (2009). Engineering and society: Working towards social justice part III: Engineering: Windows on society. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool.Google Scholar
  4. Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 68, 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barry, B. E., & Ohland, M. W. (2009). Applied ethics in the engineering, healthy, business, and law professions: A comparison. Journal of Engineering Education, 98, 377–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baum, R. J. (1980). Ethics and engineering curricula. Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: The Hastings Center, Institute of Society, Ethics, and the Life Sciences.Google Scholar
  7. Borenstein, J., Drake, M. J., Kirkman, R., & Swann, J. L. (2010). The engineering and science issues test (ESIT): A discipline-specific tool for assessing moral judgment. Science and Engineering Ethics, 16, 387–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borrego, M., Froyd, J. E., & Simin Hall, T. (2010). Diffusion of engineering education innovations: A survey of awareness and adoption rates in U.S. engineering departments. Journal of Engineering Education, 99, 185–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bovill, C., Cook-Sather, A., & Felten, P. (2011). Students as co-creators of teaching approaches, course design, and curricula: Implications for academic developers. International Journal for Academic Development, 16, 133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown, J. K., Downey, G. L., & Diogo, M. P. (2009). The normatives of engineers engineering education and the history of technology. Technology and Culture, 50, 737–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conlon, E. (2011). Macro, micro, structure, agency: Analyzing approaches to engineering ethics. In 1st world engineering education flash week. Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
  12. Cook-Sather, A. (2007). Resisting the impositional potential of student voice work: Lessons for liberatory educational research from poststructuralist feminist critiques of critical pedagogy. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 28, 389–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cook-Sather, A. (2009). From traditional accountability to shared responsibility: The benefits and challenges of student consultants gathering midcourse feedback in college classroom. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34, 231–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cutliffe, S. H. (1990). The STS curriculum: What have we learned in twenty years? Science, Technology and Human Values, 15, 360–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davis, M. (2006). Engineering ethics, individuals and organizations. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12, 223–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Drake, M., Griffin, P. M., Kirkman, R., & Swann, J. L. (2005). Engineering ethical curricula: Assessment and comparison of two approaches. Journal of Engineering Education, 94, 223–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fairweather, J. (2008). Linking Evidence and Promising Practices in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Undergraduate Education: A Status Report for The National Academies National Research Council Board of Science Education, Commissioned paper for workshop on Linking Evidence and Promising Practices in STEM Undergraduate Education for The National Academies National Research Council Board of Science Education, Oct. 13 & 14, 2008, http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/PP_Agenda_October13and14_2008.html.
  18. Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (1996). Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered instruction. College Teaching, 44, 43–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2003). Designing and teaching courses to satisfy the ABET engineering criteria. Journal of Engineering Education, 92, 7–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fielding, M. (2001). Students as radical agents of change. Journal of Educational Change, 2, 123–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Giles, A., Martin, S. C., Bryce, D., & Hendry, G. D. (2004). Students as partners in evaluation: student and teacher perspectives. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29, 681–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Glenberg, A. M., & Epstein, W. (1987). Inexpert calibration of comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 15, 84–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harris, C. E., Davis, M., Pritchard, M. S., & Rabins, M. J. (1996). Engineering ethics: What? why? how? and when?. Journal of Engineering Education, 85, 93–96.Google Scholar
  24. Harwood, J. (2006). Engineering education between science and practice: Rethinking the historiography. History and Technology, 22, 53–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Herkert, J. (2005). Ways of thinking about and teaching ethical problem solving: Microethics and macroethics in engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11, 373–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hollander, R. D., & Steneck, N. H. (1990). Science- and engineering—related ethics and values studies: Characteristics of an emerging field of research. Science Technology Human Values, 15, 84–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Holsapple, M. A., Carpenter, D. D., Sutkus, J. A., Finelli, C. J., & Harding, T. S. (2012). Framing faculty and student discrepancies in engineering ethics education delivery. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(2), 169–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Huff, C., & Frey, W. (2005). Moral pedagogy and practical ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11, 389–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Johri, A., & Olds, B. A. (2011). Situated engineering learning: Bridging engineering education research and the learning sciences. Journal of Engineering Education, 100, 151–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jonassen, D. H., & Cho, Y. H. (2011). Fostering argumentation while problem solving engineering ethics problems. Journal of Engineering Education, 100, 680–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jonassen, D. H., Shen, D., Marra, R. M., Cho, Y., Lo, J. L., & Lohanni, V. K. (2009). Engaging and supporting problem solving in engineering ethics. Journal of Engineering Ethics, 98, 235–254.Google Scholar
  32. Kline, R. (2001). Using History and sociology to teach engineering ethics. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 20, 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lichtenstein, G., McCormick, A. C., Sheppard, S. D., & Puma, J. (2010). Comparing the undergraduate experience of engineers to all other majors: Significant differences are programmatic. Journal of Engineering Education, 99, 305–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lincourt, J., & Johnson, R. (2004). Ethics training: A genuine dilemma for engineering educators. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10, 358–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lynch, W. T., & Kline, R. (2000). Engineering practice and engineering ethics. Science, Technology and Human Values, 25(2), 195–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mitcham, C. (2009). A historico-ethical perspective on engineering education: From use and convenience to policy engagement. Engineering Studies, 1(1), 35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. National Academy of Engineering. (2005). Educating the engineer of 2020: Adapting engineering education to the new century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  38. National Research Council. (2005). How students learn: history, mathematics, and science in the classroom. In M. S. Donovan & Bransford, J. D. (Eds.) Committee on How People Learn, A targeted report for teachers. division of behavioral and social sciences and education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  39. Pappano, L. (2012, November 2). The year of the MOOC. The New York Times. Google Scholar
  40. Pawley, A. (2009). Universalized narratives: Patterns in how faculty members define “engineering”. Journal of Engineering Education, 98, 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pfatteicher, S. K. A. (2003). Depending on character: ASCE shapes its first code of ethics. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 129, 21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reynolds, T. S., & Seely, B. E. (1993). Striving for balance: A hundred years of the american society for engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 82, 136–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Riley, D. (2011). Hidden in plain view: Feminists doing engineering ethics, engineers doing feminist ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics,. doi: 10.1007/s11948-011-9320-0.Google Scholar
  44. Riley, D. (2012). Aiding and abeting: The bankruptcy of outcomes-based eduction as a change strategy. American Society for Engineering Education.Google Scholar
  45. Riley, D., Pawley, A. L., Tucker, J., & Catalano, G. D. (2009). Feminisms in engineering education: Transformative possibilities. Feminist Formations, 21(2), 21–40.Google Scholar
  46. Roeser, S. (2012). Emotional engineers: Toward morally responsible design. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(1), 103–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Seely, B. E. (1999). The other re-engineering of engineering education, 1900–1965. Journal of Engineering Education, 88, 285–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Seely, B. (2005). Patterns in the history of engineering education reform. In Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century (pp. 114–130). National Academy of Engineering.Google Scholar
  49. Seron, C., & Silbey, S. (2009). The dialectic between expert knowledge and professional discretion: Accreditation, social control and the limits of instrumental logic. Engineering Studies, 1, 101–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shuman, L. J., Besterfield-Sacre, M., & McGourty, J. (2005). The ABET “professional skill”—Can they be taught? Can they be assessed? Journal of Engineering Education, 94, 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Smith, K. A., Sheppard, S. D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). Pedagogies of engagement: Classroom-based practices. Journal of Engineering Education, 94, 87–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sunderland, M. E. (2013). Taking emotion seriously: Meeting students where they are. Science and Engineering Ethics,. doi: 10.1007/s11948-012-9427-y.Google Scholar
  53. University of California, Berkeley, College of Engineering. (1967). Announcement of the College of Engineering, 19671968 (Vol. 61, Number 12). Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
  54. University of California, Berkeley, College of Engineering. (1971). Announcement of the College of Engineering, 1971 (Vol. 65, Number 10). Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
  55. University of California, Berkeley, College of Engineering. (1973). Announcement of the College of Engineering, 1973 (Vol. 67, Number 9). Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
  56. University of California, Berkeley, College of Engineering. (1990). Announcement of the College of Engineering, 1990–91. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
  57. University of California, Berkeley, College of Engineering. (2005). Announcement of the College of Engineering, 2005–06. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
  58. Weil, V. (1984). The rise of engineering ethics. Technology in Society, 6, 341–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Weil, V. (1985). Ethics in engineering curricula. Research in Philosophy and Technology, 8, 243–250.Google Scholar
  60. Wisnioski, M. (2009). “Liberal education has failed”: Reading like an engineer in 1960s America. Technology and Culture, 50, 753–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wisnioski, M. (2012). Engineers for change: Competing visions of technology in 1960s America. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  62. Wolf-Wendel, L., Ward, K., & Kinzie, J. (2009). A tangled web of terms: The overlap and unique contribution of invovlement, engagement, and integration to understanding college student success. Journal of College Student Development, 50, 407–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Yadav, A., Subedi, D., Lundberg, M. A., & Bunting, C. F. (2011). Problem-based learning: Influence on students’ learning in an electrical engineering course. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(2), 253–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Science, Technology, Medicine, and Society, Office for History of Science and TechnologyUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations