Variations in Reflections as a Method for Teaching and Assessment of Engineering Ethics

Abstract

Boulder in the Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering (CEAE) and Director for the Engineering Plus program. She has served as the Associate Chair for Undergraduate Education in the CEAE Department, as well as the ABET assessment coordinator. Professor Bielefeldt was also the faculty director of the Sustainable By Design Residential Academic Program, a living-learning community where students learned about and practice sustainability. Bielefeldt is also a licensed P.E. Professor Bielefeldt's research interests in engineering education include service-learning, sustainable engineering, social responsibility, ethics, and diversity.

How do ethics and diversity, equity, and inclusion relate in engineering? A systematic review

“…Social issues serve as a motivation for engineering work or informed course‐learning goals or activities. Authors emphasized social issues associated with existing societal problems by prompting students to consider social implications of technologies (Berg & Lee, 2016; Bielefeldt et al, 2018; Bielefeldt et al, 2020; Li et al, 2019). Instructors embedded social issues in engineering curriculums and had students consider how diversity, equity, or inclusion factored into ethical decisions pertaining to users in society.…”

“…For example, Bielefeldt et al (2018) compared faculty views and behaviors associated with teaching ethics by comparing national heritage, gender, and race. In a later study, Bielefeldt et al (2020) explored how faculty members teach ethics based on demographic diversity. They found that women faculty members were more likely to embed reflection into their instruction of ethics and societal impacts.…”

“…Wilson‐Lopez and Minichiello (2017) discussed the import of locally relevant cases and shared, “When students read about and discuss the ‘big picture’ implications of technologies on their families and communities, they can become critical designers, consumers, and citizens who are able to more comprehensively evaluate the impact of proposed and current designs” (p. 13). Similarly, Bielefeldt et al (2020) suggested that real‐world cases are engaging when they are “real and poignant” (p. 11).…”

“…Some students may also resist or dis‐engage from ethics/DEI content. As Bielefeldt et al (2020) noted, “Ethics topics can be uncomfortable, and students may not always recognize the value in having their beliefs challenged” (p. 11). In this spirit, Moore (2020) discussed hypothetical resistance from students when content is taught by non‐engineers.…”

“…Like Tooley and Umphress (2009), authors noted how DEI can (and, ostensibly, does) manifest in engineering ethics education. Bielefeldt et al (2020) discussed norms of teaching ethics in engineering, wherein microethics (i.e., a focus on individuals or relationships) has been historically prominent when compared to macroethics (i.e., a focus on societal considerations). They argue that engineering codes of ethics generally focus on micro-ethics and professional codes; conversely, a focus on social justice may lend itself to macro-ethical concerns accompanied with a primary focus on equity and fairness.…”