Author(s):
Need: Concern for teaching ethics in engineering has existed for some time, with research supporting that active learning strategies are useful instruction methods for teaching ethical reasoning in STEM fields. However, there is not sufficient information to show that active Problem-Based Learning (PBL) is effective for teaching ethical reasoning and decision making in college-level engineering courses. To evaluate PBL as an effective approach for teaching ethical reasoning, our team examined differences in first-year electrical and computer engineering undergraduates after participating in an introductory course delivered in a traditional lecture format compared to PBL style. As part of both courses, students completed three modules that required them to identify one or more ethical dilemmas present in a given fictional scenario. The study team noted a large proportion of students had challenges correctly identifying the ethical dilemma(s) for the scenario given. This finding is concerning because awareness is necessary for ethical behavior. Students who fail to identify that an ethical dilemma is even present are not equipped to then resolve or mitigate the situation at hand.Guiding Question: The guiding question in this aspect of our study is: 1) Does increasing practice opportunities to identify ethical concerns increase first-year electrical/computer engineering student performance for this skill?Outcomes (or, current progress to date): A total of six case studies (developed and published by R.C. Woods, D.A. Conner, G.-A. Capolino, and G. Adamson, and the IEEE/EMCC Member Support Subcommittee) were included in six course assignments in Year 2 course iteration to increase student practice at identifying ethical concerns prior to completing the same Year 1 final modules in the course. These case studies are fictitious examples to illustrate ethical issues that can arise in the engineering profession. Comparing the Year 2 final-module scores at identifying the ethical dilemmas (a rating from 1 to 5 using the Pittsburgh Mine engineering ethics rubric) to those from Year 1, the Year 2 scores had an average score +0.32, +0.487, and +0.08 higher for modules 1, 2, and 3, respectively. While the statistical significance of these differences is not analyzed here, the increasing trends supports those students in Year 2 demonstrated greater recognition of ethical dilemmas in these problems than the Year 1 counterparts.Broader Impacts: Overall, the use of case-studies to provide first-year students practice at recognizing and identifying ethical dilemmas was successful. Students who had the opportunity to practice these skills demonstrated better recognition of ethical dilemmas in the end-of-module problems when compared to their peers in a previous course iteration who did not use them. We encourage other engineering educators who have course goals to improve student ethical reasoning and recognition of ethical problems to adopt these case studies as low-stakes assignments into their own courses.
Coauthors
Todd Freeborn, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL; Claire Major, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL
