The Ethics Explorer is an interactive tool that was built to help engineering educators navigate the landscape of engineering ethics education. It is the newest resource in the Engineering Ethics Toolkit.
Whether you’re an ethics veteran or brand new to teaching ethics within engineering, the Ethics Explorer allows you to find your own path through what can sometimes seem like a wilderness.
Choose a path depending on what you want to do. Improve your own ethics learning? Plan for ethics learning? Integrate or assess an ethics activity? Each path leads you through content such as learning outcomes, graduate attributes, and accreditation criteria, while also pointing you to supporting activities and resources linked to the content.
The Ethics Explorer replaces the static engineering ethics curriculum map published in 2015, although there is also a printable version available in PDF form, that summarises content from the interactive Explorer.
The content in the Ethics Explorer is subject to changes in context and should be customised to suit the various forms that
an engineering degree can take. It is intended as a non-prescriptive resource â as a way of suggesting to educators how ethics might comprise a distinct theme in an engineering undergraduate degree. This version of the Ethics Explorer is focused on the UK higher education context, but it may be adapted for use in other countries.
The Ethics Explorer is a free to use resource, accessible to all. Start exploring here.
Have you used the Ethics Explorer? Tell us about your experience – what you loved, what is missing, and what could be improved. Fill out our feedback form, or email w.attwell@epc.ac.uk.
Dr. Jude Bramton of the University of Bristol discusses her first-hand experience of using the Engineering Ethics Toolkit and what lessons she learnt.
Starting off
Let me set the scene. Itâs a cold January morning after the winter break and I need to prepare some Engineering Ethics content for our third year Mechanical Engineers. The students have never been taught this topic, and I have never taught it.
Iâm apprehensive â many of our students are fantastic engineering scientists/mathematicians and Iâm not sure how they will engage with a subject that is more discussive and, unlike their more technical subjects, a subject with no single correct answer.
Nonetheless, my task is to design a 50-minute session for ca. 180 undergraduate Mechanical Engineers to introduce the concept of Engineering Ethics and start to build this thinking into their engineering mindset. The session will be in a flatbed teaching space, where students will be sitting in groups they have been working in for a number of weeks.
For a bit more context, the content is assessed eventually as part of a group coursework where students assess the ethical implications of a specific design concept they have come up with.
Designing the session with the help of the Toolkit
From doing a little bit of research online, I came across the Engineering Ethics Toolkit from the EPC â and I was so grateful.
I started off by reviewing all 8 case studies available at the time, and reading them in the context of my session. I picked one that I felt was most appropriate for the level and the subject matter and chose the Solar Panels in a Desert Oil Field case study.
I used the case study in a way that worked for me â thatâs the beauty of this resource, you can make it what you want.
I put my session together using the case study as the basis, and including the Engineering Councilâs principles of Engineering Ethics and some hand-picked tools from some of Toolkitâs guidance articles â for example, I used the 7-step guide to ethical decision making.
I used the text directly from the case study to make my slides. I introduced the scenario in parts, as recommended, and took questions/thoughts verbally from the students as we went. The students then had access to all of the scenario text on paper, and had 15-20 minutes to agree three decisions on the ethical dilemmas presented in the scenario. Students then had to post their groupâs answers on PollEverywhere.
The overall session structure looked like this:
How did it go?
When I ran the session, one key component was ensuring I set my expectations for student participation and tolerance at the start of the session. I openly told students that, if they feel comfortable, they will need to be vocal and participative in the session to get the most from it. I literally asked them – âIs that something we think we can do?â – I got nods around the room (so far, so good).
Overall, the session went better than I could have expected. In fact, I think it was the most hands up I have ever had during a class. Not only did we hear from students who hadnât openly contributed to class discussion before, but I had to actively stop taking points to keep to time. It made me wonder whether this topic, being presented as one with no wrong or right answers, enabled more students to feel comfortable contributing to a large class discussion. Students were very tolerant of each othersâ ideas, and we encouraged differences of opinion.
For the small group discussions, I left a slide up with the three ethical dilemmas and the 7-step guide to ethical decision making as a prompt for those that needed it. During the small group discussions, I and supporting teaching staff wandered around the room observing, listening and helping to facilitate discussion, although this was rarely needed as engagement was fantastic. The small group sessions also allowed opportunities for contribution from those students who perhaps felt less comfortable raising points in the wider class discussion.
To my delight, the room was split on many decisions, allowing us to discuss all aspects of the dilemmas when we came to summarise as a larger class. I even observed one group being so split they were playing rock-paper-scissors to make their decision – not quite the ethical decision making tool we might advertise, but representative of the dilemma and engagement of students nonetheless!
Student feedback
I asked our Student Cohort Representative to gather some informal feedback from students who attended the session. Overall, the response was overwhelmingly positive, here are a few snippets:
âIt was the best lecture Iâve had since Iâve been here.â
“The most interesting session, had me engaged.”
âIt was the first time learning about the connections between engineering and ethics and it was really useful.â
“I enjoyed the participation and inclusion with the students during the lesson. It has favoured the growth of personal opinions and a greater clarity of the subject and its points of view. Furthermore, the addition of real-life examples gave more depth to the topic, facilitating listening and learning.”
“The session was very engaging and I liked the use of examples⊠This whole unit has showed me how there are more aspects of engineering to consider apart from just designing something. Engineers must always think of ethics and I believe this session has demonstrated that well.”
And finally, when asked âWhat was your overall impression of the session?â a student replied âInteresting and curious.â â what more could you ask for?
It was such a pleasant surprise to me that not only did students engage in the session, but they actively enjoyed the topic.
Iâve run it once, how would I improve it?
One thing I would do differently next time would be to allow even more time for discussion if at all possible. As discussed, I had to stop and move on, despite the engagement in the room at certain points.
I also reflect how it might have gone if the students werenât as engaged at the start. If you have other teaching staff in the room, you can use them to demonstrate that itâs ok to have differences of opinion. A colleague and I openly disagreed with each other on a topic, and demonstrated that this was ok. Additionally, if larger class engagement doesnât work for you, you could also go straight to the small group discussion.
In summary (and top tips!)
I now feel very comfortable, and excited, to be teaching engineering ethics. It has now also catalysed more content to be created to embed this theme further in our programme – so it doesnât just become that âone offâ lecture. However, I think providing specific time on this subject was very beneficial for the students, it gave them time and space to reflect on such a complex topic.
My takeaways and recommendations from this experience have been:
Donât be worried about the engagement â students will enjoy it and find it interesting.
Set the expectations for participation and tolerance at the beginning, encouraging that there are no right or wrong answers.
Use the Toolkit as you need it for your context â donât be afraid to take only snippets from certain parts and make something your own.
Use PollEV or similar to involve the whole cohort and demonstrate the overall difference of opinion in the room
Give a good amount of time for discussion in small groups as well as in the larger class.
All in all, I would recommend the resources on the Engineering Ethics Toolkit to anyone. They can be easily adapted to your own contexts and there is a plethora of resources and knowledge that are proven to engage students and get them thinking ethically.
You can find out more about getting involved or contributing to the Engineering Ethics Toolkit here.
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professorsâ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
In this blog, Dr Matthew Studley, Associate Professor of Technology Ethics at UWE, looks at using case studies from the Engineering Ethics Toolkit to engage students.
Over the last two years, I have been part of the team that created the Engineering Ethics Toolkit for the Engineering Professors Council and the Royal Academy of Engineering. The toolkit is based around case studies, which let students flex their ethical muscles on problems concerning a variety of applications of technology in different fields, and are structured for delivery with examples of exercises, discussion points, and further reading.
We have integrated ethics teaching into all our programmes in the School of Engineering at UWE, Bristol, and this has given me the chance to build lessons on the case studies. Â I first delivered a session to around 100 Degree Apprentices from a variety of industrial backgrounds. Â This was exciting!
We first warmed up by discussing how ‘ethics’ is different from ‘morals’, and I suggested that we could view ethics in some ways as like any engineering process; we’re optimising for moral good, rather than cost, strength, or some other non-functional metric. Â The big difference of course is that it’s hard to determine moral value – how do we measure it?
We discussed if ideas of good and bad are culturally determined and change with time, and whether there might be any universally accepted definitions. Â We agreed that it would be hard to argue against a course of action if my opinion holds the same weight as yours. Â Not only is ‘good’ hard to measure, but we can’t agree what it is. Â So what’s the answer?
The big revelation. Â The advantage of applied ethics is that we can call upon an external standard which solves part of this problem for us, defining the behaviours and outcomes which are desirable. The Engineering Council and the Royal Academy of Engineering have created a Statement of Ethical Principles for all engineers, which gives weight to our arguments about moral worth. Â We now know what ‘good’ is.
I used one of the case studies in the toolkit to frame an open discussion in the lecture theatre, with groups discussing the points suggested by the authors. Â Although our students were from a variety of backgrounds, it wasn’t a disadvantage to use the same case study for all. Feedback from the module leader suggested that the students found the session enjoyable and engaging (apparently, I should do a regular podcast).
After this pilot we have delivered a similar session on a wider scale by tutors to groups of all our final year students. Â My colleagues suggested that some students were less engaged. I think we might use some role-play next time; get them moving round the room, get them to use their bodies, get them to own the issues. Ethics should engage the heart!
The great biologist E. O. Wilson said, “The real problem of humanity is the following: We have Palaeolithic emotions, medieval institutions and godlike technology.” With more people, having greater resource needs, and the possibility that AI will accelerate our technological development still faster, it seems to me more important than ever to train engineers who are confident and empowered to make ethical decisions.
If you would like to contribute a resource to the Engineering Ethics Toolkit, you can find out how to get involved here.
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professorsâ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Author: Sarah Jayne Hitt, Ph.D. SFHEA (NMITE, Edinburgh Napier University).
Keywords: Collaboration; Pedagogy.
Who is this article for?: This article should be read by educators at all levels in higher education who wish to integrate ethics into the engineering and design curriculum or module design.
Premise:
Most engineers and engineering educators have experienced or read about a situation that makes them think, âthat would make a great case study for students to learn from.â Examples of potential cases can be found in the news, in textbooks, and in the workplace. However, it can be difficult to translate a real world situation into an educational resource. This article sets forth a ârecipeâ based on recent educational scholarship that can be used to create case studies ideal for classroom use.
Case study purpose:
Recipes are created for different reasons â sometimes you want comfort food, sometimes itâs a healthy detox meal, sometimes itâs a stand-out celebratory feast for a special occasion. In a similar way, case studies should be written with a deliberate purpose in mind. To help you consider these, ask yourself:
What engineering disciplines does this issue most closely relate to?
Which modules or programmes might find the issue especially relevant?
Which ethical issues or professional situations referenced in the RAEng Statement of Ethical Principles could be addressed through a case study on this issue?
Are there particular outcomes associated with AHEP4 or other accreditation criteria that could be highlighted?
Next, itâs important to remember that there are different kinds of learning within ethics education. The Ethics Explorer highlights these with its focus on graduate attributes which specify what characteristics and attitudes we hope engineering graduates will develop through this learning. For example, do you want to focus on studentsâ abilities to identify or identify with an ethical situation? Or do you want them to be able to reason through options or make a judgement? Or is it important for them to learn ethical knowledge such as professional codes or practices? Any of these could be a good focus, but in general, it is useful to write a case study aimed at one particular purpose, otherwise it can become too unwieldy. Plus, case studies that have a specific learning aim can make it easier to devise assessments related to their content.Â
Case study ingredients:
Just as cooks do when preparing to make a meal, case study writers assemble ingredients. These are the components of a case that can be mixed together in different proportions in order to create the desired result. And, as in cooking, sometimes you should use more or less of an ingredient depending on the effect you want to create or the needs of your audience. But in general, educational scholars agree that these elements are necessary within a case study to promote learner engagement and to achieve the desired educational outcomes.Â
1. Setting / Context. Ethical issues in engineering donât happen in a vacuum. Often they are exacerbated by the setting and context in which they occur, whether thatâs a start-up tech company in London or an aid organisation in Brazil or in a research lab in Singapore. An authentic environment not only makes the case more realistic, but it also can add important extra dimensions to the issues at stake (Valentine et al., 2020). However, to ensure you donât run afoul of IP or other legal concerns, it can be best to fictionalise company names and invent hypothetical (yet realistic) engineering projects.
2. Characters. Ethics is a fundamentally human concern; therefore itâs important to emphasise the emotional and psychological elements of engineering ethics issues (Walling, 2015; Conlon & Zandervoort, 2011). In real life, every person brings their role, point-of-view, and background to their consideration of ethical dilemmas, so case studies should replicate that. Additionally, aspects like age, gender, and ethnicity can add complexities to situations that replicate the realities of professional life and address issues relevant to EDI. Case studies can help students imagine how they might negotiate these.Â
3. Topic. Besides the overarching ethical issue that is related to an engineering discipline, case studies are most effective when they incorporate both macro- and micro-ethical considerations (Rottman & Reeve, 2020). This means that they require students to not only deliberate about a particular scenario (should I program the software to allow for users to see how their data is used?), but also about a wider concern (how should transparency and privacy be negotiated when consenting to share data?). The chosen topic should also be specific enough so that there is opportunity to integrate elements of technical learning alongside the ethical dilemma, and reference broader issues that could relate to ethics instruction more generally (Davis, 2006; Lawlor, 2021).Â
4. Cause for Conflict. An ethical dilemma could arise from many kinds of conflict. For instance, an employee could feel pressured to do something unethical by a boss. A professional could believe that a stance by an institution is unjust. A person could experience internal conflict when trying to balance work and family responsibilities. A leader could struggle to challenge the norms of a system or a culture. In simplest terms, ethical dilemmas arise when values conflict: is efficiency more important than quality? Is saving money worth ecological harm? Case studies that highlight particular conflicts can help promote critical thinking (Lennerfors, Fors, & Woodward, 2020).
Narrative:
Once the ingredients are assembled, itâs time to write the narrative of the case study. Begin with a simple story of around 250-500 words that sets out the characters, the context, and the topic. Sometimes this is enough to gesture towards some potential ethical issues, and sometimes the conflict can be previewed in this introductory content as well.
Then, elaborate on the conflict by introducing a specific dilemma. You can create an engaging style by including human interests (like emotion or empathy), dialogue, and by avoiding highly technical language. Providing different vantage points on the issue through different characters and motivations helps to add complexity, along with adding more information or multiple decision-making points, or creating a sequel such as justifying the decision to a board of directors or to the public.Â
Ultimately, the narrative of the case study should be engaging, challenging, and instructional (Kim et al., 2006). It should provide the opportunity for students to reconsider, revisit, and refine their responses and perspectives (Herreid, 2007). Most of all, it should provide opportunities to employ a range of activities and learning experiences (Herkert, 2000). Your case study will be most effective if you suggest ideas for discussions or activities that can help learners engage with the issues in a variety of ways.Â
Putting the frosting on the cake:
The community of professionals committed to integrating ethics in engineering education is strong and supportive. Running your ideas by an expert in the topic, a colleague, or a member of our Ethics Ambassadors community can help strengthen your case study. Most of all, discussing the issue with others can help you develop your own confidence in embedding ethics in engineering. The more case studies that we develop from more perspectives, the more diversity we bring to engineering education and practice â we can all learn from each other. We hope you start cooking up your own case study soon!
You can find information on contributing your own resources to the toolkit here.
References:
Conlon, E. and Zandvoort, H. (2011). âBroadening ethics teaching in engineering: Beyond the individualistic approachâ, Science and Engineering Ethics, 17, pp. 217-232.
Davis, M. (2006) âIntegrating ethics into technical courses: Micro-insertionâ, Science and Engineering Ethics, 12, pp. 717-730.
Herkert, J.R. (2000) âEngineering ethics education in the USA: Content, pedagogy, and curriculumâ, European Journal of Engineering Education 25(4), pp. 303-313.
Herreid, C.F. (2007) Start with a story: The Case study method of teaching college science. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Kim, S. et al. (2006) âA conceptual framework for developing teaching cases: A Review and synthesis of the literature across disciplinesâ, Medical Education 40, pp. 867-876.
Rottman, C. and Reeve, D. (2020) âEquity as rebar: Bridging the micro/macro divide in engineering ethics educationâ, Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education 20, pp. 146-165.Â
Valentine, A. et al. (2020) âBuilding studentsâ nascent understanding of ethics in engineering practiceâ, European Journal of Engineering Education 45(6), pp. 957-970.
Walling, O. (2015) âBeyond ethical frameworks: Using moral experimentation in the engineering ethics classroomâ, Science and Engineering Ethics 21, pp. 1637-1656.
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professorsâ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Author: Konstantinos Konstantis (National and Kapodistrian University of Athens).Â
Who is this article for? This article should be read by educators at all levels in higher education who wish to integrate ethics into the engineering and design curriculum or module design. It will also help prepare students with the integrated skill sets that employers are looking for. Â
Â
Premise:Â
It goes without saying that the way we design and use technology plays a crucial role in our daily lives. Engineers and their decisions have a huge impact on society (Unger, 2005). Technology is presented as a very promising solution for many societal problems, such as the environmental crisis and poverty. At the same time, many ethical challenges arise. The imminent possibility of artificial intelligence (AI) and robots replacing humans in a vast array of professions, and the everyday cyber-related issues concerning privacy, freedom, property, and security, are just a few of the challenges that the information revolution has bequeathed to us. Furthermore, advances in biomedical technology and, in particular, genetic engineering and developments in reproductive procedures, raise very similar issues including the reconfiguration of the distinction between the artificial and the human. Without a consideration of ethics, engineering could be inadequately or inappropriately designed to address these challenges.Â
Walczak et al. (2010) assert that ethical development comes as an output of three components. First, the knowledge of ethics refers to the ability of engineers to understand what is ethical and what is not ethical. In this component belongs the understanding of the professional responsibility of engineers and of codes of ethics for engineers. Second, ethical reasoning refers to the ability of engineers to first understand ethical problems and then to deal with them. Third, ethical behaviour refers to the ethical intentions that engineers have during an ethical problem and ethical solutions that engineers provide to that problem (Walczak et al., 2010). According to Walczak et al. (2010), formal curricular experiences, co-curricular experiences, student characteristics, and institutional culture are four aspects that influence ethical development of engineering students. Â
However, there is a disconnection between these four aspects and ethical development. There are five obstacles that are responsible for this disconnection (Walczak et al., 2010, p. 15.749.6). First, âthe curriculum is already full, and there is little room for ethics education,â second, âfaculty lack adequate training for teaching ethics,â third, âthere are too few incentives to incorporate ethics into the curriculum,â fourth, âpolicies about academic dishonesty are inconsistent,â and fifth, âinstitutional growth is taxing existing resources.â Among other ways to overcome these obstacles, Walczak et al. (2010, p. 15.749.9 – 15.749.10) recommend the integration of curricular and co-curricular activities. Student organisations and service learning are two examples of how to integrate ethics in engineering education effectively. For instance, student organisations could organise lectures in which engineering students have the chance to listen to engineers talk about real life ethical problems and dilemmas. Secondly, service learning is a way for engineering students to combine ethics education with their engineering practice. Participating in community service activities offers the opportunity for students to understand the role of engineers and their responsibility towards society. Finally, integrating ethics alongside technical curriculum and within the context of engineering projects can help students understand the ethical context of their work.  Â
This is an important reason for integration, because as van de Poel and Royakkers (2011) describe, ethics helps engineers to deal with technical risks. Martin and Schinzinger (2009) show us how different subfields of engineering, such as computer and environmental engineering, could benefit from the inclusion of ethics. Baura (2006) analyses how engineers could have acted in concrete ethical dilemmas that have been presented in the past, in order not to lead to some of the engineering disasters that have happened. Martin and Schinzinger (1983) highlight engineering as âsocial experimentation,â requiring the need for the ethical education of engineers in order for them to be ready to take the right decisions in dilemmas they will have to deal with in the future. According to Fledderman (2011), codes of ethics of engineers and an array of ethical theories could be combined to offer ethical problem-solving techniques (for example âline drawingâ and âflow chartsâ) to engineers. Â
However, ethics should be integrated in engineering for another reason as important as those listed above. Technology not only shapes society, but it is shaped by society too. Therefore, engineering ethics should be twofold. First, engineering ethics should address âdisaster ethics,â and second, it should be about âthe social aspects of everyday engineering practiceâ (Kline, 2001, p. 14). Traditionally, engineering accidents become the cause for engineers and engineering ethicists to analyse the ethical implications of technology and the ways that engineers could take decisions that will not lead to disasters again. These examples are called âdisaster ethicsâ. The âsocial aspects of everyday engineering practiceâ have to do with the fact that technology is not made in a single time when an engineer has to take a serious decision that may cause an accident or not, but rather in daily and regular practice. These aspects are referring to the co-constitution of technology and society and how engineers can âdeal with everyday issues of tremendous significance regarding the ethical and social implications of engineeringâ (Kline, 2001, p. 19). Â
The Engineering Council and the Royal Academy of Engineering have published the Statement of Ethical Principles, which should be followed by all engineers in the UK. Statements like this are useful to encourage engineers to act ethically. But, ethics in engineering should be integrated in the whole âengineering lifeâ. From research to implementation, ethics should be part of engineering (Kline, 2001). Â
If courses relevant to engineering ethics are absent from the curriculum, engineering students take the message that ethics is not important for their education and therefore for their profession (Unger, 2005). In contrast with the claim that ethics is innate and therefore cannot be taught (Bok, 1976), ethics should be integrated in engineering teaching and practice. The fields of Science and Technology Studies (STS) and History of Technology could play a crucial role in covering the twofold aspect of engineering ethics as presented in this article. Scholars from these fields, among others, could give answers on questions such as âHow do engineering practices become common, despite the fact they may be risky?â This is what Vaughan (1997), in her analysis of the Challenger disaster, calls ânormalisation of devianceâ. This is the only way for engineers to understand the bidirectional relationship between technology and society, and to put aside the dominant ideology of neutral technology that affects and shapes society and doesnât get affected by it. No matter if engineers want to add ethics into the making of technology, âin choosing a solution, engineers are making an ethical judgementâ (Robison, 2014, p.1).Â
To conclude, there are many engineering challenges that need to be addressed. Integrating ethics in engineering is one of the best ways to address these challenges for the benefit of the whole of society. This is also the way to overcome problems relevant with the difficulty to add ethics into the engineering curriculum, such as the fact that the engineering curriculum is already full. Ethics has not only to do with the way that technology affects society, but also with the fact that society shapes the way that engineers design and develop technology. If ethics is integrated in engineering education and the curriculum, students perceive that their actions in engineering are not only technical, but at the same time have to do with ethics too. They donât perceive ethics as a separate âtick-boxâ that they have to fill during engineering, but instead they perceive ethics as a fundamental part of engineering.Â
Â
References:Â
Baura, G. D. (2006) Engineering Ethics: An Industrial Perspective. Academic Press.Â
Bok, D. C. (1976) âCan Ethics Be Taught?â Change, 8(9), pp. 26â30. Â
Fleddermann, C. B. (2011) Engineering Ethics (4th ed.). Pearson.Â
Hagendorff, T. (2020) âThe Ethics of AI Ethics: An Evaluation of Guidelinesâ, Minds and Machines, 30(1), pp. 99â120. Â
Kline, R. R. (2001) âUsing history and sociology to teach engineering ethicsâ. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 20(4), pp. 13â20. Â
Martin, M. W. and Schinzinger, R. (1983) âEthics in engineeringâ. Philosophy Documentation Center, 2(2), 101â105.Â
Martin, M. W. and Schinzinger, R. (2009) Introduction to Engineering Ethics. McGraw-Hill.Â
Poel, I. van de, and Royakkers, L. (2011) Ethics, Technology, and Engineering: An Introduction. Wiley-Blackwell.Â
Robison, W. L. (2014) âEthics in engineeringâ, 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Ethics in Science, Technology and Engineering, pp. 1â4. Â
Unger, S. H. (2005) âHow best to inject ethics into an engineering curriculum with a required courseâ, International Journal of Engineering Education, 21(3), 373â377. Â
Vaughan, D. (1997) The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA. University of Chicago Press.Â
Walczak, K., Finelli, C., Holsapple, M., Sutkus, J., Harding, T., and Carpenter, D. (2010) âInstitutional obstacles to integrating ethics into the curriculum and strategies for overcoming themâ, ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, pp. 15.749.1-15.749.14. Â
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professorsâ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Author: Andrew Avent (University of Bath).Â
âââââââKeywords: Assessment criteria; Pedagogy; Communication. Â
Who is this article for? This article should be read by educators at all levels in higher education who wish to integrate ethics into the engineering and design curriculum, or into module design and learning activities. It describes an in-class activity that is appropriate for large sections and can help to provide students with opportunities to practise the communication and critical thinking skills that employers are looking for.Â
Â
Premise:Â
Encouraging students to engage with the ethical, moral and environmental aspects of engineering in any meaningful way can be a challenge, especially in very large cohorts. In the Mechanical Engineering department at the University of Bath we have developed a debate activity which appears to work very well, minimising the amount of assessment, maximising feedback and engagement, and exposing the students to a wide range of topics and views. Â
In our case, the debate comes after a very intensive second year design unit and it is couched as a slightly “lighter touch” assignment, ahead of the main summer assessment period. The debate format targets the deeper learning of Bloom’s taxonomy and is the logical point in our programme to challenge students to develop these critical thinking skills. Â
Bloom, B. S. (1956). “Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain.” New York: David McKay Co Inc.Â
This activity addresses two of the themes from the Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes (AHEP) fourth edition: The Engineer and Society (acknowledging that engineering activity can have a significant societal impact) and Engineering Practice (the practical application of engineering concepts, tools and professional skills). To map this to AHEP outcomes specific to a programme under these themes, access AHEP 4here and navigate to pages 30-31 and 35-37.Â
Â
The debate format:Â
Several weeks prior to the unit starting, academic staff are asked to submit ideas for technical engineering conundrums as topics for debate; the topics need to be current and include ethical, moral, environmental and technical feasibility aspects.Â
The cohort is divided into randomly formed groups (aiming for six members in each). An even number of groups is essential (half being pro vs half being anti).Â
Each pair of groups is assigned a debate topic, with odd numbered groups arguing in favour of the statement, even numbered groups arguing against.Â
Each group then spends a couple of weeks researching the topic (we weave this in around Easter so the precise timings vary). Studio/tutorial sessions are used by the groups to (a) clarify the scope and intent of the question posed, (b) try out their arguments, and (c) obtain differing perspectives from academic support staff.Â
We provide supporting lectures covering environmental considerations and commercial imperatives; there is scope to include ethical issues within this.Â
On debate day the cohort is further divided so that we can run four concurrent debate sessions and keep the timings reasonable.Â
Each debate room is set up with the two teams in a “v” formation facing each-other and the audience. The typical timings of a debate session are provided in Table 1 below.Â
Table 1: Timings for technical feasibility debate. There is plenty of scope to alter these timings
and allow a healthy debate from the floor and further exploration of the key arguments.Â
The audience is asked to vote (using a QR code unique to each session) and the winning team is declared. The votes are revealed in real time and are displayed, adding an element of theatre. Â
There are no marks on the debate at this stage; attendance is notionally compulsory but in fact we have near full attendance. In any event, the sense of anticipation, duty to oneâs team and a desire to eavesdrop on colleaguesâ debate tactics (arguments) drives the activity. Staff from across the department are invited to attend those sessions related to their interests and research; they often chime in with questions from the floor and provide an interesting perspective for the students to take into the final deliverable â a six-minute video presentation of their argument.Â
The videos are marked by a panel of three academics (a number greater than three and there tends to be an inevitable dilution of marks at the extreme ends of the spectrum).Â
Following marking, the videos are made available to the rest of the cohort (in our case, hosted on Panopto) so that they can further engage in topics of their choosing and understand why they were allocated the mark they were.Â
Â
Some key points to bear in mind:Â
The students do not get the opportunity to choose a topic or indeed which side of the argument they are required to argue. This is presented to the students by asking them to imagine they were a defence counsel at court, having to defend a notorious criminal; in order to ensure the safety of the conviction they would have to acquaint themselves with every weakness, every potential flaw in the prosecutionâs case and to anticipate the “killer questions”. Take for example a team of engineering undergraduates who are all keen F1 enthusiasts and are placed in a position of having to take the negative position and argue against F1 as a sport (the actual debate topic is shown below).
The environmental impact of Formula 1 can(not) be justified through improvements to vehicle and other technologies.
For clarity, the term “Affirmative” means they are arguing for the proposal, “Negative” implies they are arguing against the proposal. The Negative argument includes the bracketed word in all cases.Â
Equally the team given the “affirmative” position to argue in favour of the sport, needs to be certain of their arguments and to fully research and anticipate any potential killer questions from their opponents.Â
It will be seen that this challenges the students and indeed the audience (staff included) to confront some uncomfortable and inconvenient truths, exposing those present to the deeper research undertaken by the students in preparation for the debate as well as to the broader contexts of engineering and its macroethical implications.Â
Asking for a video submission a few days after the debate forces the students to assimilate the counter arguments and update or revise their presentation and indeed potentially their entire approach.Â
The first time this debate format was trialled was as an entirely online (remote) activity (forced upon us by the pandemic). Thanks to the sterling work on the requisite IT/AV side by colleagues (acknowledged below) it worked very well in this format and was universally acclaimed as a success by staff and students alike (receiving positive feedback and high unit evaluation scores). In this format it was a gruelling three and a half hour exercise, but it allowed students, who had hitherto been isolated from their wider cohort, to engage in the banter and atmosphere from afar. There was an element of student voting in this first iteration of this exercise and a real sense of healthy competition and energy.Â
Â
Discussion points for improvements:Â
The use of microphones in front of each team and for the session chair/MC would improve engagement from the entire audience.Â
An element of peer marking might heighten engagement further but might also be problematic with students influencing the actual unit marks of their peers.Â
Directly linking academic research and teaching material to the topics for debate might encourage a more engaged and critical cohort in later units and might also potentially send the students out on placement better prepared and more aware.
We felt that our experience with what has become known as the Technical Feasibility Debate was worth sharing with the wider higher education community, and hope that readers will learn from our experience and implement their own version. Â
Â
Acknowledgements:Â
Dr Joseph Flynn â unit convener and co-originator of the debate format.Â
Dr Ed Elias â for his excellent lecture providing the students with some insight into the commercial imperatives impacting their arguments.Â
Dr Rick Lupton â for his excellent lecture and supporting material giving the students an environmental and lifecycle analysis perspective to their arguments.Â
Dr Nathan Sell â for his technical, IT and AV contribution (including the voting system) which made the new format possible. Â
Dr Elies Dekoninck â as head of the design group in Bath for her encouragement and support in trialling these new approaches.Â
Â
Appendices:Â
Typical list of debate topics:Â
Gas turbines are (not) a dying technology for aircraft propulsion.
Cumbrian super coal mine: there is (no) justification for accessing these fossil fuel reserves.
Metal additive manufacturing, 3D Printing, is (not) a sustainable technology.Â
Mining the Moon/asteroids for minerals, helium, etc. should (not) be permitted.Â
Electrification of lorries via hydrogen fuel cell technology is (not) preferable to changing the road infrastructure to include overhead power lines (or similar).Â
Electrification of road vehicles is (not) preferable to using cleaner fuel alternatives in internal combustion engine cars.Â
The use of single use plastic packaging is (not) defensible when weighed up against increases in food waste.Â
The environmental impact of Formula 1 can(not) be justified through improvements to vehicle and other technologies.Â
Solar technologies should (not) take a larger share of future UK investment compared to wind technologies.Â
Tidal turbines will (never) produce more than 10% of the UKâs power.Â
Wave energy converters are (never) going to be viable as a clean energy resource.Â
Commercial sailing vessels should (not) be used to transport non-perishable goods around the globe.Â
We should (not) trust algorithms over humans in safety-critical settings, for example autonomous vehicles.Â
Inventing and manufacturing new technologies is (not) more likely to help us address the climate emergency than reverting to less technologically and energy intense practicesÂ
Mechanical Engineering will (not) one day be conducted entirely within the Metaverse, or similar.Â
The financial contribution and scientific effort directed towards fundamental physics research, for example particle accelerators, is (not) justified with regard to the practical challenges humanity currently faces.Â
A total individual annual carbon footprint quota would (not) be the best way to reduce our carbon emissions.Â
The UK power grid will (not) be overwhelmed by the shift to electrification in the next decade.Â
We are (not) more innovative than we were in the past â breakthrough innovations are (not) still being made.Â
Lean manufacturing and supply chains have (not) been exposed during the pandemic.Â
Marking rubric:Â
CriteriaÂ
5Â
4Â
3Â
2Â
1Â
1. Organisation and Clarity:âŻÂ
Main arguments and responses are outlined in a clear and orderly way.Â
Exceeds expectations with no suggestions for improvement.Â
Completely clear and orderly presentation.Â
Mostly clear and orderly in all parts.Â
Clear in some parts but not overall.Â
Unclear and disorganised throughout.Â
2. Use of Argument:âŻÂ
Reasons are given to support the resolution.Â
Exceeds expectations with no suggestions for improvement.Â
Very strong and persuasive arguments given throughout.Â
Many good arguments given, with only minor problems.Â
Some decent arguments, but some significant problems.Â
Few or no real arguments given, or all arguments given had significant problems.Â
3. Presentation Style:âŻÂ
Tone of voice, clarity of expression, precision of arguments all contribute to keeping audienceâs attention and persuading them of the teamâs case. Neatly presented and engaging slides, making use of images and multimedia content.Â
Exceeds expectations with no suggestions for improvement.Â
All style features were used convincingly.Â
Most style features were used convincingly.Â
Few style features were used convincingly.Â
Very few style features were used, none of them convincingly.Â
Â
References:Â
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc.Â
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professorsâ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Author: Dr Gill Lacey (Teesside University).Â
Keywords: Pedagogy; Societal impact; Personal ethics; Research ethics.Â
Who is this article for?: This article should be read by educators at all levels in higher education who wish to integrate ethics into the engineering and design curriculum or module design. It will also help prepare students with the integrated skill sets that employers are looking for. Â
Â
Premise:Â
Ethics is defined in many ways but is generally agreed to be a set of moral (right or wrong) principles that govern social behaviour. While this is not the place for a discussion of ethical philosophies and theories that analyse what we mean by âmoralâ, or how we define social behaviour, it is pertinent to consider the nature of engineering ethics so that we understand why it should be integrated into modules. Davis gives us a rather pared down explanation: âIntegrating ethics into science and engineering courses is largely a matter of providing context for what is already being taught, context that also makes the material already being taught seem ‘more relevant,’â(Davis, 2006). Â
Despite this, very often ethics is considered as an afterthought â sometimes it only comes up when a solution to a technical problem results in unintended consequences. Rather, we need our students to look at any technical solution through an ethical lens â as well as through an economic one. This generally involves considering what effect any technical project might have on society, especially on those who use that technology. Teaching students to consider the technology through an ethical lens makes them true engineers, not just technicians. And as Davis implies, relevance provides motivation.Â
Â
Some principles for integrating ethics:
Consideration needs to be given to improving our studentsâ ethical learning throughout their course/programme (Hess and Fore, 2018). We argue that ethics can and should be embedded into most modules in a natural way, giving as much or as little time to it as necessary. A planned progression should be aimed for throughout the course, and the Ethics Explorer in this Toolkit provides suggestions as to how this can be accomplished. A more sophisticated understanding will be arrived at over time by exposing them to more and more complex cases where the outcome is not obvious. A graduate engineer should be able to give a considered response to an employerâs question about an ethical position during an interview. Â
Other principles for integrating ethics include:Â Â
1. State your assumptions and moral position at the start of a course/moduleÂ
This is not the same as taking a moral stance. Some moral issues can be universally agreed, but not all, so we need an approach to morally disputed issues. We must be clear about the ethical framework in which the course is being taught. An ethically neutral engineering course is neither advisable nor possible.Â
For instance, it needs to be baldly stated that climate change is real, that all the modules in the course make that assumption, and low carbon solutions are the only ones that will be considered. Some students will be challenged by that. This is a case of stating the moral position of the course and asking the students how they are going to âbeâ with that position, because it will not be argued for (Broadbent, 2019). Â
Many lecturers start a module with an âexpectationsâ list, especially with new students; it could be argued this is a first exposure to engineering ethics as it relates to social and professional behaviour in the teaching space. There is no room for discussion or reflection here; this is a statement of how things are going to be in this community. Sharing accepted moral values is assumed here.Â
There are general standards of behaviour to which everyone is expected to conform around respect and disagreeing constructively; there is a professional standard to which we can conform. The advantage of doing this is that it provides certainty and weight to our judgement in report writing as well as practice in professional ethical conduct in the workplace.Â
2. Provide resourcesÂ
A survey regarding the teaching of ethics showed agreement between the students that provision of resources, such as case studies and examples, were needed to allow ethics to be considered. They want guidance and accessto receiving ethical approval for projects or research, and an opportunity for reflection on personal ethics and how these relate to professional attitudes or projects (Covill et al., 2010). Examples include:Â
Case studies. This Ethics Toolkit provides dozens of potential case studies for use in a classroom setting. Students are challenged to explore their existing preconceptions and modify them to accommodate the realities of the cases (Lundeberg, Levin, and Harrington, 1999). Educators can also follow these models to develop their own case studies.
Engineering ethics in the news. For instance, in a wastewater treatment module, the following article might be highlighted: âAlmost 90% of storm overflows discharge directly into rivers. And 3 in 4 rivers we tested last year pose a serious continuous risk to human health.â (Surfers Against Sewage (SAS), 2022). Although SASâs website gives plenty of graphic images and up to date news as well as links to the policies that surround the issue, it doesnât give much detail on why it happens. So it becomes a useful ethical study by asking those questions. It is not the role of the teacher to come up with any answers, but it is vital to articulate and acknowledge the feelings and emotions when presented with such an issue (Prince and Felder, 2006). We all can agree that allowing untreated sewage to overflow into rivers is bad. So how does it happen? Where is the sewage supposed to go? Where is the storm water supposed to go? What happens during a storm? What do engineers have to do with the cause, or the solution, to this problem? It is important to remind students that no one intends the sewage to contaminate watercourses, it is an unintended consequence. So how could it be prevented, and how could engineers support this solution? What needs to be done technically, politically and financially to solve the problem? Be on the lookout for contemporary issues, to make it relevant. Direct quotes, videos, images and so on from issues in the news allow students to fully involve themselves with the issue.
Guidance and access to receiving ethical approval for projects or research. This is a procedural issue, which may vary according to the institution; many universities have a research ethics policy which mandates the process. Clearly, we should comply with our own university processes where they exist. A simple approach that is popular with students is a form containing yes/no questions (Junaid et al., 2021). The project supervisor can prepare students to answer accurately by talking to them about their proposals to help them identify the ethical considerations by asking âwhat if?â type questions. This allows a non-specialist to decide whether a more in-depth ethical survey is needed.Â
3. Allow for opportunity to reflectÂ
This can be achieved by requiring a reflection in every level of an engineering degree. It could be part of an assessment at the end of a project or module in the form of a short, written reflection. It could be approached by asking the student in an interview to consider the ethics of a situation and the interviewer can then challenge the student on their journey to become ethically literate. Â
Broadbent, O. (2018). âDelivering project based learning: Teaching resources and guidance for academics.â Engineers without Borders and Think-up.Â
Covill, D., Singh D.G., Katz, T., and Morris, R. (2010). âEmbedding ethics into the engineering and product design curricula: A Case study from the UK,â International Conference On Engineering And Product Design Education, 2 & 3 September. Norwegian University Of Science And Technology, Trondheim, Norway.Â
Davis, M. (2006) âIntegrating ethics into technical courses: Micro-insertion,â Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(4), pp.717-730.Â
Hess, J.L., and Fore, G. (2018) âA Systematic Literature Review of US Engineering Ethics Interventions,â Science and Engineering Ethics 24, pp. 551â583. Â
Junaid, S., Kovacs, H., Martin, D. A., and Serreau, Y. (2021) âWhat is the role of ethics in accreditation guidelines for engineering programmes in Europe?â,âŻProceedings of the SEFI 49th Annual Conference: Blended Learning in Engineering Education: challenging, enlightening â and lasting? European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), pp. 274-282.Â
Lundeberg, M.A., Levin, B.B. and Harrington, H.L. (eds.), (1999). Who learns what from cases and how? The research base for teaching and learning with cases. Routledge.Â
Prince, M.J. and Felder, R.M. (2006) âInductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases,â Journal of Engineering Education 95, pp. 123-138.Â
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professorsâ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Authors: Matthew Studley (UWE Bristol); Sarah Jayne Hitt, Ph.D. SFHEA (NMITE, Edinburgh Napier University).Â
Keywords: Pedagogy; Personal ethics; Risk.Â
Who is this article for? This article should be read by educators at all levels in higher education who wish to integrate ethics into the engineering and design curriculum, or into module design and learning activities. It describes techniques that can help to provide students with opportunities to practise the communication and critical thinking skills that employers are looking for.Â
Premise:Â
Discussing ethical issues can be a daunting prospect, whether one-to-one or with an entire classroom. Ethics often addresses topics and decisions related to moral choices and delicate situations about which people may have firm and long-held beliefs. Additionally, these issues are often rooted in underlying values which may differ between people, cultures, or even time periods. For instance, something that was considered immoral or unethical in a rural community in 18th-century Ireland may have been viewed very differently at the same time in urban India. Because students come from different backgrounds and experiences, it is essential to be sensitive to this context (Kirk and Flammia, 2016). However, ethics also requires that we address tough topics in order to make decisions about what we should do in difficult situations, such as those encountered by engineers in their personal, professional, and civic lives.Â
Â
Why we need to be sensitive in discussions about ethics:Â
Discussions about tough topics can be âtriggeringâ. Psychologists define a psychological âtriggerâ as a stimulus that causes a painful memory to resurface. A trigger can be any reminder of the traumatic event: a sound, sight, smell, physical sensation, words, or images. When a person is triggered, theyâre being provoked by a stimulus that awakens or worsens the symptoms of a traumatic event or mental health condition (Gerdes, 2019). A personâs strong reaction to being triggered may come as a surprise to others because the response seems out of proportion to the stimulus, because the triggered individual is mentally reliving the original trauma. Some neurodivergencies can adapt these responses. For example, people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) may experience stronger emotional reactions and may present this in ways which are unfamiliar or surprising to those who have not experienced the same challenges (Fuld, 2018).Â
Apart from triggering memories, the topics of right and wrong may be emotive. Young people are often passionate in their beliefs and may be moved to strong responses. There is nothing wrong with that, unless one personâs strong response makes anotherâs participation and expression less likely. Â
Â
Ethics is only salient if the topics are tough:Â
Ethics concerns questions of moral value, of right and wrong, and relates to our deep-held beliefs and emotions. If any experience in an engineerâs education is likely to cause unpleasant memories to surface, or to stimulate strong discussion, itâs likely to be Ethics, and some of our students may have an emotional response to the topics of discussion and their impacts. This might be enough to make many educators shy away from integrating ethics.Â
Several resources exist to guide educators who are engaging with tough topics in the classroom. Teaching and learning specialists recognise the challenges inherent in engaging with this kind of activity, yet also want to support educators who see the value in creating a space for students to wrestle with the difficult questions that they will encounter in the future. Many centres of teaching and learning at universities provide strategies and guidance through websites or pamphlets that are easily found by searching online. We include a list of some of our preferred resources below.Â
b. Prepare by finding local supportÂ
Even though we will avoid obvious triggers, thereâs always the possibility that our students may become upset. We should be prepared by promoting the contact details for local support services within the institution. It can never be a bad thing for our students to know about these.Â
 c. Give warnings and ask for consentÂ
You might want to warn your students that discussing ethical matters is not without emotional consequence. At your discretion, seek their explicit consent to continue. There has been some criticism of this approach in the media, as some authors suggest that this infantilises the audience. Indeed, the pros and cons of trigger warnings might make an interesting topic for discussion: life can be cruel, is there value in developing a thick skin? What do we lose in this process? Being honest about your own hesitations and internal conflicts might encourage students to open up about how they wrestle with their own dilemmas. To be fully supportive, consider an advanced warning with the option to opt-out so that people arenât stampeded into something they might prefer to avoid.Â
 d. Recognise discomfort, and respondÂ
Be aware of the possibility that individuals in your group could become upset. Be prepared to quietly offer time out or to change the activity in response to where the students want to take the discussion. Again, being transparent with the students that some people may be uncomfortable or upset by topics can reveal another relevant ethical topic â how to be respectful of others whose response differs from your own. And being willing to change the activity demonstrates the flexibility and adaptability required of 21st century engineers! Â
 e. Avoid unnecessary riskÂ
Some topics are best avoided due to the strength of emotion which they might trigger in students whose life story may be unknown to us. These topics include sexual abuse, self-harm, violence, eating disorders, homophobia, transphobia, racism, child abuse and paedophilia, and rape. Â
Â
Be kind, and be brave:Â
Above all, let your students know that you care for their well-being. If we are to teach Ethics, let us be ethical. You might need to overcome some awkward moments with your students, but you will all learn and grow in the process!Â
Â
References:Â
Fuld S. (2018) âAutism spectrum disorder: The Impact of stressful and traumatic life events and implications for clinical practice.â Clinical Social Work Journal 46(3), pp. 210-219. Â
Gerdes, K. (2019) âTrauma, trigger warnings, and the rhetoric of sensitivity,â Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 49(1), pp. 3-24.Â
Kirk S. A. and Flammia, M. (2016) âTeaching the ethics of intercultural communication,â in Teaching and Training for Global Engineering: Perspectives on Culture and Professional Communication Practices, pp.91-124.Â
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professorsâ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Funded by the Royal Academy of Engineering the EPCâs Engineering Ethics toolkit was recently launched â containing a range of case studies and supporting articles to help engineering educators integrate ethics content into their teaching. EPC Board member and Professorial Teaching Fellow, Mike Bramhall, at The Engineering and Design Institute (TEDI-London) has incorporated three of the case studies from this recently produced toolkit into TEDIâs BEng (Hons) in Global Design Engineering. Mike and two of his students, Stuart Tucker and Caelan Vollenhoven, gave a presentation at this yearâs EPC Annual Congress about their positive experience teaching and learning with the case studies. In this blog, Mike reflects on how and why he incorporated these resources.
The BEng (Hons) Global Design Engineering programme was launched in our brand new institution â TEDI-London â in September 2022. The programme is a blended mix of online learning integrated with project-based learning. Through this project-based learning approach and working in partnership with industry, our students will create and contribute to solutions to some of the biggest challenges facing the 21st century and be equipped with the skills employers need from future engineers. Within these real-world projects, students work in teams and consider the ethical, environmental, social, and cultural impacts of engineering design. These issues are important for an engineer to understand whilst working with society. This importance is highlighted in the UK Standard for Professional Engineering Competence and Commitment (UK-SPEC: 4th edition) with accreditation bodies identifying ethics as one of the core learning outcomes and competencies in engineering programmes. The Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes in engineering standards (AHEP: 4th edition) reflects the importance of societal impact in engineering. To meet AHEP 4 our programme learning outcomes have been mapped against all required outcomes. The Engineer and Society outcomes include:
Sustainability
Ethics
Risk
Security
Equality, Diversity and Inclusion
To help students understand some of these issues whilst working on their design projects we chose three case studies from the Engineering Ethics Toolkit:
We converted key parts of these case studies to be compatible with our virtual learning environment and incorporated them into one online learning node. To support students in their development of ethical thinking, each case study focuses on different parts of ethics for engineers:
Everyday ethics
Ethical reasoning
Ethical analysis
Students are guided through the case studies in small chunks and asked to reflect upon each ethical issue. In this way students are not overwhelmed with too much information all at once. Eventually students are asked to incorporate their reflection into an end of year Professional and Personal Portfolio, explaining and evidencing how they have met each of the AHEP learning outcomes. The image below shows an example of a reflection task.
We asked the students to go through the online node individually prior to a class session in which staff then facilitated small-group discussions on each of the case studies. For example, for the Smart Meter case study we suggested that one group could look at being âfor smart metersâ and another group âagainst smart metersâ, using ethical issues and judgement in their decision making. Other issues arose during these discussions such as sustainability, data security, risk, and equality, diversity & inclusion. Some of the student comments are shown below:
On a high level, installing a smart meter is being portrayed as the decent thing to do in terms of the environment however it is just an instrument to monitor usage.
One way to be good to the environment is to be careful with your energy usage, e.g. switching off lights, only having heating and hot water when required so installing effective timers/thermostats in parts of your home where you need it.
Security & privacy: Who can see your consumption data and what can they do with it? The meters are all connected to the central wireless network, called the Data Communication Company (DCC). Concerns are that this network could be âhackedâ into. They may see a pattern of no-usage and provide opportunity for theft.
As first year undergraduate engineers we now have an insight and awareness of ethics and the responsibility of engineers in society.
Breaking down the case studies into a more interactive format and in manageable chunks made it easier for students, to stop us being overwhelmed â making it perfect for discussion in small groups.
We could put our thoughts on ethics into our end of year Portfolios â mapping against the AHEP requirements
These comments show how broadly and deeply students were able to engage with the ethical concepts presented in the case studies and apply them to their future work. As our course progresses, we intend to use more of the case studies, and map them appropriately against particular projects that students are working on at each level of the programme.
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professorsâ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Authors: Dr Gareth Thomson (Aston University, Birmingham), Dr Jakub Sacharkzuk (Aston University, Birmingham) and Paul Gretton (Aston University, Birmingham)
Abstract: This paper describes the work done within the Mechanical, Biomedical and Design Engineering group at Aston University to develop an Industry Club with the aim to enhance and strategically organise industry involvement in the taught programmes within the department. A subscription based model has been developed to allow the hiring of a part-time associate to manage the relationship with industry, academic and student partners and explore ways to develop provision. This paper describes the approach and some of the activities and outcomes achieved by the initiative.
Introduction
Industry is a key stakeholder in the education of engineers and the involvement of commercial engineering in taught programmes is seen as important within degrees but may not always be particularly optimised or strategically implemented.
Nonetheless, awareness of industry trends and professional practice is seen as vital to add currency and authenticity to the learning experience [1,2]. This industry involvement can take various forms including direct involvement with students in the classroom or in a more advisory role such as industrial advisory or steering boards [3] designed to support the teaching team in their development of the curriculum.
Direct input into the curriculum from industry normally involves engagement in dissertations, final year âcapstoneâ project exercises [4], visits [5], guest lectures [6,7], internships [8,9] or design projects [10,11]. These are very commonly linked to design type modules [12,13] or projects where the applied nature of the subject makes industrial engagement easier and are more commonly centred toward later years when students are perceived to have accrued the underpinning skills and intellectual maturity needed to cope with the challenges posed.
These approaches can however be ad hoc and piecemeal. Industry contacts used to directly support teaching are often tied into specific personal relationships through previous research or consultancy or through roles such as the staff involved also being careers or placement tutors. This means that there is often a lack of strategic thinking or sharing of contacts to give a joined up approach â an academic with research in fluid dynamics may not have an easy way to access industrial support or guidance if allocated a manufacturing based module to teach.
This lack of integration often gives rise to fractured and unconnected industrial involvement (Figure 1) with lack of overall visibility of the extent of industrial involvement in a group and lack of clarity on where gaps exist or opportunities present themselves.
Figure 1 : Industry involvement in degrees is often not as joined up as might be hoped.
As part of professional body accreditation it is also generally expected that Industrial Advisory Boards are set-up and meet regularly to help steer curriculum planning. Day to day pressures however often mean that these do not necessarily operate as effectively as they could and changes or suggestions proposed by these can be slow to implement.
Industry Club
To try to consolidate and develop engagement with industry a number of institutions have developed Industry Clubs [14,15] as a way of structuring and strategically developing industrial engagement in industry.
For companies, such a scheme offers a low risk, low cost involvement with the University, access to students to undertake projects and can also help to raise awareness in the students minds of companies and sectors which may not have the profile of the wider jobs market beyond the big players in the automotive, aerospace or energy sectors. At Aston University industry clubs have been running for several years in Mechanical Engineering, Chemical Engineering and Computer Science.
The focus in this report is the setting up and development of the industry club in the Mechanical, Biomedical and Design Engineering (MBDE) department.
Recruitment of companies was via consolidation of existing contacts from within the MBDE department and engagement with the wider range of potential partners through the Universityâs âResearch and Knowledge Exchangeâ unit.
The industry focus within the club has been on securing SME partners. This is a sector which has been found to be very responsive. Feedback from these partners has indicated that often getting access to University is seen as ânot for themâ but when an easy route in is offered, it becomes a viable proposition. By definition SMEs do not have the visibility of multi-nationals and so they can struggle to attract good graduates so the ability to raise brand awareness is seen as positive. From the perspective of academics, the very flat and localised management structure also makes for a responsive partner able to make decisions relatively quickly. Longer term this opens up options to explore more expansive relationships such as KTPs or other research projects and also sets up a network of different but compatible companies able to share knowledge among themselves.
Within MBDE the industry club initially focussed on placing industrially linked projects for final year dissertation students. This was considered relatively âlow hanging fruitâ with a simple proposition for companies, academics and students.
The companies get the opportunity to access the physical and student resource of the university
The students get a more contextualised and live project offering added practical and commercial concerns of a commercial project thereby enhancing their experience and employability
The academics are able to enhance the curriculum and build industrial contacts who can support both teaching and research going forward.
While this proposal is straightforward it is not entirely without difficulty with matching of academics to projects, expectation management and practical logistics of diary mapping between partners all needing attention.
To support this, an Industry Club Associate was recruited to help manage the initiative, funding for this being drawn from industry partner subscriptions and underwritten by the department.
This has allowed the Industry Club to move beyond its initial basis of final year projects to have a much wider remit to oversee much of the involvement of industry in both the teaching programmes directly and in their advising and steering of the curriculum.
Figure 2 shows schematically the role and activities of the industry club within the group.
Impact Beyond Projects
The use of the Industry Club to co-ordinate and bolster other industry activity within the department has gone beyond final year projects. These can be seen in Figure 2.
The Industrial Advisory Board has now become linked to the Industry Club and so with partners now involved in the wider activities of the club involvement is now not exclusively limited to twice yearly meeting but is an active ongoing partnership using the projects, other learning and teaching activity and a LinkedIn group to create a more dynamic and responsive consultation body. A subset of the IAB is now also made up entirely of recent alumni to act as a bridge between the students and practising industry to help spot immediate gaps and opportunities to support students in this important transition.
Figure 2 : Industry Club set-up and Activity
The club has also developed a range of other industrially linked activities in support of teaching and learning.
While industrial involvement is relatively easy to embed in project or design type modules this is not so easy in traditional underpinning engineering science type activity.
To address the lack of industrial content in traditional engineering science modules a pilot interactive online case studies be developed to help show how fundamental engineering science can be applied in authentic industrial problems. A small team consisting of an academic, the industry club associate and an industrialist was assembled.
This team developed an online pump selection tool which combined interactive masterclasses and activities, introduced and explained by the industrialist to show how the classic classroom theory could be used and adapted in real world scenarios (Figure 3). This has been well-received by students, added authenticity to the curriculum and raised awareness in student minds of the perhaps unfashionable but important and rewarding water services sector.
Figure 3 : Online Interactive Activity developed as part of industry club activity
Further interactions developed by the Industry Club, and part of its remit to embed industrial links at all stages of the degree, include the involvement of an Industrial Partner on a major wind turbine design, build and test project engaged in as group exercises by all students in year one. Here the industrialist, a wind energy professional, contextualises work while his role is augmented by a recent alumni member of the Industrial board who is currently working as a graduate engineer on offshore wind and who completed the same module as the students four years or so previously.
Conclusion
While the development of the Industry Club and its associated activity can not be considered a panacea, it has significantly developed the level of industry involvement within programmes. More crucially it moves away from an opaque and piecemeal approach to industry engagement and offers a more transparent framework and structure on which to hang industry involvement to support academics and industry in developing and maximising the competencies of graduates.
References
Pantzos, P.,Gumaelius L.,Buckley J. and Pears A., “On the role of industry contact on the motivation and professional development of engineering students,” 2019 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2019, pp. 1-8, doi: 10.1109/FIE43999.2019.9028621.
Male, S.A., King, R. (2019). Enhancing learning outcomes from industry engagement in Australian engineering education. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 10(1), 101â117.
Genheimer SR, Shehab R. The effective industry advisory board in engineering education – a model and case study. 2007 37th Annual Frontiers In Education Conference – Global Engineering: Knowledge Without Borders, Opportunities Without Passports, 2007 FIE â07 37th Annual. October 2007. doi:10.1109/FIE.2007.4418027
Surgenor B, Mechefske C, Wyss U, Pelow J,(2005) Capstone Design – Experience with Industry Based Projects, 1st Annual CDIO Conference Queenâs University Kingston, Ontario, Canada June 7 to 8, 2005
Carbone A, Rayner GM, Ye J, Durandet Y (2020) Connecting curricula content with career context: the value of engineering industry site visits to students, academics and industry, European Journal of Engineering Education, 45:6, 971-984, DOI: 10.1080/03043797.2020.1806787
Fang N, Mcneill L, Spall R, Barr P (2019) Impacts of Industry Seminars and a Student Design Competition in an Engineering Education Scholarship Program International Journal of Engineering Education Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 674â684, 2019
Ringwood JV(2013) Integrating industrial seminars within a graduate engineering programme, European Journal of Engineering Education, 38:2, 141-148, DOI: 10.1080/03043797.2012.755497
Magnell M, Geschwind L, Kolmos A (2017) Faculty perspectives on the inclusion of work-related learning in engineering curricula, European Journal of Engineering Education, 42:6, 1038-1047, DOI: 10.1080/03043797.2016.1250067
Tennant S, Murray M, Gilmour B, Brown L. Industrial Work Placement in Higher Education: A Study of Civil Engineering Student Engagement. Industry and Higher Education. 2018;32(2):108-118. Accessed April 30, 2021.
Mejtoft T, (2015) Industry Based Projects And Cases: A CDIO Approach To Studentsâ Learning, Proc. of the 11th International CDIO Conference, Chengdu University of Information Technology, Chengdu, Sichuan, P.R. China, June 8-11, 2015.
Lima RM, Dinis-Carvalhoa J, Sousaa RM, Arezesa P, Mesquita D, (2017), Production, Development of competences while solving real industrial interdisciplinary problems: a successful cooperation with industry, 27(spe), e20162300, 2017 | DOI: 10.1590/0103-6513.230016
Seidel R, Shahbazpour M, Walker D, Shekar A, Chambers C, (2011), An Innovative Approach To Develop Studentsâ Industrial Problem Solving SkillsProc. of the 7th International CDIO Conference, Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen, June 20 – 23, 2011
Thomson G, Prince M, McLening C, Evans C, (2012) A Comparison Between Different Approaches To Industrially Supported Projects, Proc. of the 8th International CDIO Conference, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, July 1 – 4, 2012
University of Canterbury, (2021), Collaborate â College of Engineering
Aston University (2021), Computer Science Industry Club Brochure
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professorsâ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.