Using Student Engagement to Relocate Ethics to the Core of the Engineering Curriculum
- 384 Downloads
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.
KeywordsEducation History Pedagogy Student engagement
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.
- 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
- 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
- Conlon, E. (2011). Macro, micro, structure, agency: Analyzing approaches to engineering ethics. In 1st world engineering education flash week. Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Pappano, L. (2012, November 2). The year of the MOOC. The New York Times. Google Scholar
- Riley, D. (2012). Aiding and abeting: The bankruptcy of outcomes-based eduction as a change strategy. American Society for Engineering Education.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- University of California, Berkeley, College of Engineering. (1967). Announcement of the College of Engineering, 1967–1968 (Vol. 61, Number 12). Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- University of California, Berkeley, College of Engineering. (1990). Announcement of the College of Engineering, 1990–91. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
- University of California, Berkeley, College of Engineering. (2005). Announcement of the College of Engineering, 2005–06. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
- Weil, V. (1985). Ethics in engineering curricula. Research in Philosophy and Technology, 8, 243–250.Google Scholar
- Wisnioski, M. (2012). Engineers for change: Competing visions of technology in 1960s America. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar