Professional communities are experiencing scandals involving unethical and illegal practices daily. Yet it should not take a national major structure failure to highlight the importance of ethical awareness and behavior, or the need for the development and practice of ethical behavior in engineering students. Development of ethical behavior skills in future engineers is a key competency for engineering schools as ethical behavior is a part of the professional identity and practice of engineers. While engineering educators have somewhat established instructional methods to teach engineering ethics, they still rely heavily on teaching ethical awareness, and pay little attention to how well ethical awareness predicts ethical behavior. However the ability to exercise ethical judgement does not mean that students are ethically educated or likely to behave in an ethical manner. This paper argues measuring ethical judgment is insufficient for evaluating the teaching of engineering ethics, because ethical awareness has not been demonstrated to translate into ethical behavior. The focus of this paper is to propose a model that correlates with both, ethical awareness and ethical behavior. This model integrates the theory of planned behavior, person and thing orientation, and spheres of control. Applying this model will allow educators to build confidence and trust in their students’ ability to build a professional identity and be prepared for the engineering profession and practice.

No abstract

Background Engineering practice is meant to advance the human condition, yet curricula do not appear to fully promote the human‐centered philosophy of engineering in implementation. The educational system may inadvertently signal to students that engineering is a career choice better suited for those preferring to work with things rather than people. This framing of the profession prompts questions regarding student interests when compared to those of practicing engineers and how such interests become concrete through education and introduction into the profession. Purpose/Hypothesis We compare engineering students' and practitioners' interest in working with people or things in their environment. We examine gender differences for each sample. Design/Methods Multiple analysis of variance was used to examine the samples of practicing engineers (n = 339) and first‐year engineering students (n= 383). A multiple‐group confirmatory factor analysis provides evidence of measurement invariance and justifies the use of the person–thing orientation (PO–TO) scale structure for both samples. Results Detailed PO values reveal that students' PO scores (n = 383, M = 3.313) are more than one and a half points lower than practicing engineer counterparts examined (n = 339, M = 4.836). However, no significant difference between practicing engineers and students was found for TO. Further, statistically significant differences in PO and TO were found between male and female participants within both samples, students and practicing engineers. Conclusions Differences detected in PO and TO across the samples suggest possible environmental factors influencing student perspectives of the engineering profession. This condition may inadvertently discourage more diverse students from pursuing engineering.

No abstract

No abstract