Jenn Mallette teaches technical communication at the undergraduate and graduate level. In addition to working with STEM students in her undergraduate technical communication course, she collaborates with faculty in the College of Engineering to focus on enhancing writing education in engineering courses. Her other research focuses on women in engineering, and she has recently published on the results of a case study exploring the connections among women's experiences in engineering, their identities as writers, and their writing.

Even without a focused interest in the topic, as we enter the third decade of the 21st Century one would have a difficult time ignoring the steady flow of stories reporting tragic consequences arising from engineering decisions that appear to have omitted ethical components, and of ethical dilemmas arising from contemporary engineering and computer science. Similarly, one would have to be willful to miss an equally steady drumbeat of calls for improved ethics in engineering and computer science education.

Boise State University offers three undergraduate engineering programs, Mechanical, Civil, and Electrical & Computer engineering. The engineering program at Boise State is relatively new with its first BS degrees conferred in 1997. Like most engineering programs, we offer a 3-credit course to first year engineering students. When the programs were first conceived and implemented, there was widespread agreement and consensus on the educational objectives and method of implementation of this course. However, as our faculty and student body grew, and as responsibilities for the course moved from department to department and faculty member to faculty member, it became clear that a more integrated and formal approach was required to both define the goals and content of the course and to document the manner in which it is implemented. At this time, we also considered other issues such as resource utilization and methods for offering this course at a distance. A faculty survey was implemented and analyzed and it was found that a strong consensus existed regarding both the overall goals and the content of the course. In Fall of 2001, the course was restructured and three sections were offered. During the course, student assessment was implemented to investigate our success in achieving the course goals. Lessons learned from Fall 2001 were used to modify the approach for the Spring 2002 semester. ENGR 120: Introduction to Engineering: Course History and Overview Few elements of the undergraduate curriculum have been the subject of more discussion, research and disagreement than the first engineering course. The only consensus that exists is that there should be such a course. Engineering faculty proceed from that point in one of two ways. The historic approach might be described by the phrase: : "If Professor X is willing to do this job, than she/he should at least be allowed to decide how to do it." In this case, the course takes on the priorities and biases of the individual given the (often unpopular) task of teaching the course. An alternative would be to work towards a consensus among the faculty about what should be done in first year engineering, and an agreement that all who teach the course will carry out those wishes, regardless of their personal biases. This approach is made

He teaches advanced undergraduate laboratory courses and manages the senior capstone program in the Micron School. He received BS and MS degrees from the University of California at Berkeley and his PhD degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1997), all in Materials Science and Engineering. He has over 13 years of experience working in industry where he learned how important hands-on education and professional development are for preparing students to succeed in the workplace.

No abstract