Authors: Dr. Natalie Wint (UCL); Dr. William Bennett (Swansea University).

Keywords: Assessment; Accreditation, AHEP, Competencies; Curriculum design; 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.

Related content:

 

Guidance

Premise:

As engineering educators, it is uncommon that we were taught or assessed on ethical thinking within our own degree programmes. Although we may be able to think of plenty of ethical scenarios from our own experience, we may not necessarily be able to identify the best way to assess the ability of a student to engage in ethical thinking in a systematic and robust manner, something which is critical for both the evaluation of learning and teaching (as explained further here).

Furthermore, the complex, ill-structured nature of ethical dilemmas, which often involve a variety of diverse stakeholders, perspectives and cultural norms, necessitates an ability to navigate tensions and compromise. This results in situations in which multiple possible courses of action can be identified, meaning that there is not one single ‘good’ or ‘correct’ answer to ethical questions posed.

It is also necessary to evidence that students are able to meet the criteria outlined by accreditation bodies. Within the UK context, it is the Engineering Council (EC) that is responsible for providing the principal framework which guides engineering course content and sets accreditation threshold standards of competence through AHEP, the Accreditation of Higher Education Programs, as part of The UK Standard for Professional Engineering Competence (UKSPEC).

The knowledge, skills and attributes expected of engineering graduates constantly shifts, and since the advent of AHEP in 2004 there has been increased focus on strengthening design, and consideration for economic, ethical, environmental, legal, and social factors.

In-keeping with a need to assess engineering ethics in a robust manner, this article provides step-by-step considerations for designing assessment and is primarily intended to be used in conjunction with an existing ethics case study, such as those available through the EPC’s Engineering Ethics Toolkit (we later make use of the existing ‘Water Wars’ case study to exemplify the points made).

The guidance and accompanying rubric have been designed in a way that encourages students to grapple with the numerous tensions involved in ethical decision making, and the focus is thus on assessment of the decision-making process as opposed to the ‘answer’ given, the decision made or the outcome of the scenario.

 

Assessment purpose:

The first consideration is the year group you are assessing, and the competencies they have already acquired (for example in the case of Level 5 and Level 6 students). You may want to consider the (partial) learning outcome (LO) as defined by AHEP4 LO8 (Table 1). Whilst this shouldn’t act to limit what you choose to assess, it is a good place to start in terms of the level of ability your students should be demonstrating.

Note that the Engineering Council (EC) claim “This fourth edition of AHEP has reduced the total number of learning outcomes in order to focus attention on core areas, eliminate duplication and demonstrate progression between academic levels of study”. They are thus interested in the differences between level. You are recommended to make this explicit in module specification and associated assessment description. Key differentiations are shown in Table 1. For example, at Level 5 you may be more interested in students’ abilities to identify an ethical situation, whereas at Level 6 you may want them to be able to reason through options or make a judgement.

Table 1: AHEP4 Learning Outcomes

Year 1
(Level 4)		 Year 2
(Level 5)		 Year 3
(Level 6)		 M Level
(Level 7)
LO8 Apply ethical principles and recognise the need for engineers to exercise their responsibilities in an ethical manner and in line with professional codes of conduct. Identify ethical concerns and make reasoned ethical choices informed by professional codes of conduct. Identify and analyse ethical concerns and make reasoned ethical choices informed by professional codes of conduct. Identify and analyse ethical concerns and make reasoned ethical choices informed by professional codes of conduct (MEng).
Interpretation Awareness of issues, obligations, and responsibilities; sensitising students to ethical issues. Ability to resolve practical problems; identify ethical issues and to examine opposing arguments. Ability to resolve practical problems; identify ethical issues and examine and evaluate/critique opposing arguments. Ability to resolve practical problems; identify ethical issues and examine and evaluate/critique opposing arguments.

 

The final row in Table 1 provides our interpretation of the LO, making use of language similar to that within the EPC’s Ethics Learning Landscape. We believe this is more accessible and more easily operationalised.

The following steps outline the process involved in designing your assessment. Throughout we make reference to an existing EPC case study (Water Wars) to exemplify the points made.

1.) The first consideration is how much time you have and how much of the case study you want to use. Many of the case studies have multiple stages and could be spread over several sessions depending on time constraints.

2.) Linked to this is deciding whether you want to assess any other LOs within the assessment. For example, many of the case studies have technical elements. Furthermore, when using reports, presentations, or debates as methods of assessment you may also want to assess communication skills. Whatever you decide you should be careful to design the assessment in such a way that assesses LO8 in a robust manner, whereby the student could not pass the element without demonstrating they have met the individual LO to the required level (this is a key requirement to meet AHEP4). For example, in an assessment piece where ethics is worth 50% of the grade, a student could still pass the element as a whole (with 40%) by achieving high scores in the other grading criteria without the need to demonstrate their ability to meet LO8.

3.) Once you are aware how much of a case study you have time for and have decided which LOs (other than LO8) you are assessing, you should start to determine which questions are aligned with the level of study you are considering and/or the ability of the students (for example you may query whether students at Level 5 have already developed the skills and competencies suggested for Level 4). At each level you can make use of the accompanying rubric to help you consider how the relevant attributes might be demonstrated by students. As an example, please refer to the accompanying document where we provide our thoughts about how we would assess Water Wars at Levels 4-6.

4.) Once you have selected questions you could look to add any complementary activities or tasks (that do not necessarily have to be assessed) to help the students broaden their understanding of the problem and ability to think through their response. For example, in the Water Wars case study, there are multiple activities (for example Part 1, Q3 and Part 2, Q3, Q4, Q6, Q7) aimed at helping students understand different perspectives which may help them to answer further ethical questions. There are also technical questions (for example Part 1, Q5) which help students understand the integrated nature of technical and social aspects and contextualise scenarios.

5.) Once you have selected your questions you will need to make a marking rubric which includes details of the weightings given for each component of the assessment. (This is where you will need to be careful in selecting whether other LOs are assessed e.g., communication, and whether a student can pass the assessment/module without hitting LO8). You can then make use of the guidance provided in terms of expectations at a threshold and advanced level, to write criteria for what is expected at each grade demarcation.

Although we have focused on ‘Water Wars’ here, the suggested assessment questions within the accompanying rubric have been designed in such a way that they can be used in conjunction with the case studies available within the toolkit, or with another case study that has been created (by yourself or elsewhere) to outline an ethical dilemma.

 

Other considerations:

As acknowledged elsewhere within the toolkit (see here), there are “practical limits on assessment” (Davis and Feinerman, 2012) of ethics, including demands on time, pressure from other instructors or administrators, and difficulty in connecting assessment of ethics with assessment of technical content. These are some other considerations you may wish to make when planning assessment.

‱ Number of students and/or marking burden: With large student numbers you may be more inclined to choose a group assessment method (which may also be beneficial in allowing students to share perspectives and engage in debate), or a format which is relatively quick to mark/allows automated marking (e.g. a quiz). In the case of group work it is important to find a way in which to ensure that all students within each group meet the LO in a robust manner. Whilst assessment formats such as quizzes may be useful for assessing basic knowledge, they are limited in their ability to ensure that students have developed the higher-level competencies needed to meet the LO at output level.

‱ Academic integrity: As with any LO there is a need to ensure academic integrity. This may be particularly difficult for large cohorts and group work. You may wish to have a range of case studies or ensure assessment takes place in a controlled environment (e.g. an essay/report under exam conditions). This is particularly important at output level where you may wish to provide individual assessment under exam conditions (although competencies may be developed in groups in class).

‱ Logistics/resourcing: Many of the competencies associated with ethics are heavily linked to communication and argumentation, and answers tend to be highly individual in nature. Role play, debates, and presentations may therefore be considered the most suitable method of assessment. However, their use is often limited by staffing, room, and time constraints. Many of these methods could, instead, be used within class time to help students develop competencies prior to formal assessment. You may also choose to assess ethics in another assessment which is more heavily resourced (for example design projects or third year projects).

‱ Staged assessment: The ethical reasoning process benefits from different perspectives. It may therefore be desirable to stage assessment in such a way that individuals form their own answer (e.g. a moral problem statement), before sharing within a group. In this way a group problem statement, which benefits from multiple perspectives and considerations, can be formed. Similarly, individuals may take the role of an individual stakeholder in an ethical dilemma before coming together as a group.

‱ Use of exams: Whilst we see an increasing movement away from exams, we feel that a (closed book) exam is a suitable method of assessment of ethics based LOs in the situation that:

o There is a need to ensure academic integrity, and that each student meets the LO at output level.

o The exam is assessing competencies (e.g. ethical argumentation) as opposed to knowledge.

o All the relevant information needed is provided and there is limited content for students to learn in advance (aside from argumentation, justification, decision making skills etc developed in class).

Their use may therefore be limited to Level 6.

 

Rubric

This document provides the partial AHEPLO8 at each level. The competences involved in meeting this LO have then been identified, along with what students would need to demonstrate to evidence meeting a threshold level, or advanced level. Example questions are given to show how students may demonstrate their competence at each level. For each question there is an explanation of how the question supports achievement of LO at that level. The rubrics should be used alongside the accompanying guidance document which offers practical suggestions and advice.

Year 1: This year focuses on developing awareness of issues, obligations, and responsibilities, and sensitising students to ethical issues.

Year 2: This year focuses on developing the ability to identify ethical issues and to examine opposing arguments, all of which is needed to examine, analyse, and evaluate ethical dilemmas in Year 3.

Year 3: This year focuses on ensuring that students can satisfy LO8 at an output level in a robust manner.

 

References:

Davis, M. and A. Feinerman. (2012). ‘Assessing graduate student progress in engineering ethics’, Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(2), pp. 351-367.

 

Downloads:

Assessing ethics: Guidance

Assessing ethics: Rubric

Assessing ethics: Case study assessment example: Water Wars

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

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 Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.

We’re excited to share with you that we are starting work on a Complex Systems Toolkit, aimed at supporting educators in their teaching of the subject. Toolkit development will start in early 2025. The Complex Systems Toolkit is supported by Quanser. Read on to learn more and find out how you can get involved.

WHY is the EPC developing a Complex Systems Toolkit?

WHAT is a Complex Systems Toolkit?

HOW will the Toolkit be developed?

WHO is involved in Toolkit development?

 

This post is also available here. 

At the Engineering Professors Council (EPC), we believe that inclusivity should be embedded into the heart of engineering education. One of the key areas where this is essential is supporting individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing. We are proud to be a supporter of the the Engineering Deaf Awareness Project (E-DAP), a pioneering initiative established by Dr. Emma Taylor, focused on making Deaf Awareness a standard practice within engineering, both in academia and industry.

Why This Matters in Engineering Education and Workplace Settings. 

A recent study by the University of Manchester and University of Nottingham, published in the International Journal of Audiology revealed that deafness and hearing loss affects 18 million people in the UK—around one-third of adults. Despite its prevalence, many educational institutions and industries, including engineering, face challenges in making environments fully accessible to deaf or hard of hearing individuals. The E-DAP project highlights a crucial issue: without deaf awareness, talented engineering students and professionals face significant barriers that limit their ability to contribute fully in all aspects of their daily personal, academic and professional lives.

Gaining Momentum

The E-DAP has gained significant momentum through increased collaboration and has expanded its reach, engaging a wider audience in conversations about accessibility in engineering. This growth culminated in a recent visit to Google’s Accessibility Discovery Centre (ADC) in London, where next generation Engineering Leaders Scholarship (ELS) awardees from the Royal Academy of Engineering joined forces with a diverse community to explore how technology can drive meaningful change. 

Hackathon Innovating for Deaf Awareness at Google’s Accessibility Discovery Centre (ADC)

At the ADC, the team toured the latest tech and heard a keynote presentation by award-winning EDI lead Maria Grazia Zedda, followed by a hackathon focused on developing new ideas for accessible tech in engineering. 

The hackathon hosted by Ellie Hayward (leading in implementing deaf awareness in start-up environments) and judged by Royal Academy of Engineering Visiting Professor Dr. Emma Taylor, brought together the best next generation engineering minds to tackle real-life deaf accessibility challenges.

Working in pairs, they focused on how they could develop technologies to break down barriers and develop integrated technology support for deaf individuals, in both academic and professional environments. The hackathon participants came from diverse engineering disciplines (biomedical, aerospace, software, manufacturing, mechanical, structural and spacecraft) and included;  

The team was supported by Stella Fowler and Professor Sarah Hitt of the Engineering Professors Council. Stella is also an Honorary Research Fellow at UCL and Sarah is Professor of Liberal Studies at NMITE, which focuses on a real-world, holistic and contextual approach to engineering. 

The team also benefited from valuable advice and sustained support provided by RNID, a Google ADC partner, whose expertise supported the accessibility focus of the hackathon. For further insights on fostering inclusive environments, RNID’s guidelines on accessible meetings are an essential resource.

The hackathon sparked a wide range of innovative ideas, inspired by the ADC visit and Maria’s keynote speech, and these will be further refined in a future hackathon later this year. 

Looking Forward

In the coming months, the E-DAP will collaborate on a series of outputs including hackathons, a webinar and the development of a manifesto for change outlining key recommendations for integrating deaf awareness into education and industry. It’s evident that the momentum of the E-DAP will continue to build, with a strong focus on two key areas;

A Shared Vision for Change

At the EPC, we recognise inclusivity benefits everyone. By supporting the E-DAP, we aim to create an environment where all can thrive and contribute to the future of engineering. Together, we can ensure that deaf awareness is not just an initiative but a standard practice in our field. We look forward to bringing more updates to the EPC community over the coming months.

Read our Engineering Ethics Toolkit blog Embedding ethics in engineering education through wide use of deaf awareness: a gateway to a more inclusive practice and see our Engineering Deaf Awareness Project (E-DAP) Toolkit.

This post is also available here.

We want to see ethics embedded in all engineering modules and courses, across all higher education institutions. But to see this achieved we need your help. There are many ways that you can promote the teaching of ethics within your institution and department, and we’ve listed just a few here to get you started.

 

Our toolkit resources are designed to help educators embed ethics in their teaching, even if they have no previous experience of teaching ethics. But we need educators to know that these resources exist and how to find them. We’ve provided some key talking points about the Engineering Ethics Toolkit that you can discuss with colleagues over a cup of coffee at lunchtime or some PowerPoint slides for something more formal.

Download our posters and put them up on staff noticeboards in your department. We have a poster for the Ethics Toolkit, the Ethics Explorer interactive tool, and our Ethics Ambassadors community. Spread the word!

The Engineering Ethics Toolkit is open access, and its teaching resources can be adapted to suit individual needs. We’d love for you to add us to your list of go-to resources.

Sharing on social media is a great way to spread the word about our guidance articles, case studies, case enhancements and blogs.

Often, all it takes is a bit of encouragement to give someone the confidence to start adding ethics to their teaching. We have advice on organising class sessions using our case studies; why not sit down with a couple of colleagues, get to grips with it, and make a plan?

There’s no point just talking about it: at some point you have to do it! We have advice on how to integrate ethics into a module or course, how to organise class sessions using our case studies, how to tackle tough topics, and even how to teach ethics for the first time. We’ve believe we’ve got everything you need to get started, but if you think we’re missing something, let us know.

Once you’ve got to grips with teaching ethics, you’re perfectly placed to teach your colleagues how to go about it. Tell them about your own experiences, what was easy, what was difficult, and where to find the resources they need!

Whether you feel like a seasoned pro or are still struggling to say ‘deontology debate’, we want to hear your experiences. You can submit a blog to the Toolkit, or complete our feedback form.

Our case studies are published with a CC-BY-SA Creative Commons 4.0 license, meaning that you can (and are encouraged to!) share and adapt them, making them appropriate to your specific context. If you would like to send us a link to any adapted materials that you have published, we’ll add it to our resources.

Hopefully all of your institution’s engineering students will come across engineering ethics during their course. But if there are some modules or courses that don’t currently embed ethics, you could reach out to your institution’s SU Engineering Society and offer to give a brief talk with Q&A to discuss issues such as what ethics is, why it’s important in engineering, and how engineers can make ethical decisions. This way you are introducing keen engineers to a vital subject that they might miss out on elsewhere.

Engineering curricula can do more to help students effectively develop ethical awareness, reasoning, or motivation in future engineering professionals. Whilst individual educators can (and do) make a vast difference by embedding ethics across their own engineering modules, a top down approach from the institution making ethics integration mandatory across curricula would mean that all engineering teaching staff would have to embed ethics in their courses and modules. You could make ethical practice a unique selling point of your programme!

Need some teaching activities on the fly? Check out our case studies and case enhancements for last minute classroom materials that you can use when you haven’t had time to plan in advance! If you’re ready to take a more methodical approach to planning across the year or curriculum, you can start with our Ethics Explorer, read all of our advice and guidance, pick our juiciest case studies, and peruse our personal blogs.

Our community of practice is growing steadily, and we encourage you to join, and join in.

We are seeking academics to review the various resources that are submitted to us for publication within the Engineering Ethics Toolkit. Our expectation is that we may ask you to review two or three pieces of content per year. You can apply to be a reviewer here.

We encourage academics to submit advice and guidance, personal blogs, case studies, enhancements and other teaching materials to us for publication in the Engineering Ethics Toolkit. Working with colleagues on this content spreads the word and doubles the expert value. You can find out more about submitting content for the Toolkit here.

Ready to talk ethics? Organise an informal lunch or coffee meet up with department colleagues to share experiences and good practice in teaching engineering ethics. Going to a conference? Get ready to talk ethics to anyone who will listen! We’ve got some handy talking points for you to use. Keep an eye out for opportunities to share resources and expertise.

Tell us your ideas for promoting ethics within your institution or workplace. Email w.attwell@epc.ac.uk.

This post is also available here.

Have YOU used the Engineering Ethics Toolkit? We’re trying to understand the impact that this educational resource has had since its launch in 2022. Understanding impact is key to our ability to further develop and expand the Toolkit’s reach. 

You can help us by answering a few questions (below) and by forwarding this questionnaire to anyone you know who might also have used the Ethics Toolkit. There is no deadline for submitting this form; we are interested in your ongoing experiences.

Select all that apply
Select all that apply

If you would like to submit a blog post on your experience of teaching ethics or using the Engineering Ethics Toolkit, you can do so here.

 

This post is also available here. 

Elsevier’s James Harper has just written a valuable new guidance article for the Engineering Ethics Toolkit on Why information literacy is an ethical issue in engineering. We got together with him to discuss this further.

 

James, where did your passion for this issue originate and how can the resources available for information literacy be put to use both by faculty and students?  

We live in a time marked by an unprecedented deluge of information, where distinguishing reliable and valuable content has become increasingly difficult. My concern was to help engineering educators meet the critical challenge of fostering ethical behaviour in their students in this complex world. Students are in real need of an ethical compass to navigate this information overload, and the digital landscape in particular. They need to acquire what we call ‘information and digital literacy’, specifically, learning how to research, select and critically assess reliable data. This is both a skill and a practice.  

For students, how does this skill relate to the engineering workplace? 

From observing professional engineers, it’s clear they require comprehensive insights and data to resolve problems, complete projects, and foster innovation. This necessitates extensive research, encompassing case studies, standards, best practices, and examples to validate or refute their strategies. Engineering is a profession deeply rooted in the analysis of failures in order to prevent avoidable mistakes. As a result, critical and unbiased thinking is essential and all the more so in the current state of the information landscape. This is something Knovel specifically strives to improve for the communities we serve. 

Knovel – a reference platform I’ve significantly contributed to – was initially built for practising engineers. Our early realisation was that the biggest obstacle for engineers in accessing the best available information wasn’t a lack of resources, but barriers such as insufficient digitalisation, technological hurdles, and ambiguous usage rights. Nowadays, the challenge has evolved: there’s an overload of online information, emerging yet unreliable sources like certain chatbots, and a persistently fragmented information landscape.  

How is Knovel used in engineering education? Can you share some insights on how to make the most of it? 

Knovel is distinguished by its extensive network of over 165 content partners worldwide, offering a breadth of trusted perspectives to meet the needs of a range of engineering information challenges. It’s an invaluable tool for students, especially those in project-based learning programs during their Undergraduate and Master’s studies. These students are on the cusp of facing real-world engineering challenges, and Knovel exposes them to the information practices of professional engineers. 

The platform is adept at introducing students to the research methodologies and information sources that a practising engineer would utilise. It helps them understand how professionals in their field gather insights, evaluate information, and engage in the creative process of problem-solving. While Knovel includes accessible introductory content, it progressively delves into more advanced topics, helping students grasp the complexities of decision-making in engineering. This approach makes Knovel an ideal companion for students transitioning from academic study to professional engineering practice. 

How is the tool used by educators? 

For educators, the tool offers support starting in the foundational years of teaching, covering all aspects of project-based learning and beyond. It is also an efficient way for faculty to remain up-to-date with the latest information and data on key issues. Ultimately, it is educators who have the challenge of guiding students towards reputable, suitable, traceable information. In doing so, educators are helping students to understand that where they gather information, and how they use it, is in itself an ethical issue. 

To learn more about the competence of information literacy check out our guidance article, Why information literacy is an ethical issue in engineering.

Knovel for Higher Education is an Elsevier product. As a publisher-neutral platform, Knovel helps engineering students explore foundational literature with interactive tools and data. 

46% of EPC members already have access to Knovel. To brainstorm how you can make the best use of Knovel in your classroom, please contact: Susan Watson, susan.watson@elsevier.com.  

Faculty and students can check their access to Knovel using their university email address at the following link: Account Verification – Knovel

Get Knovel to accelerate R&D, validate designs and prepare technical professionals. Innovate in record time with multidisciplinary knowledge you can trust: Knovel: Engineering innovation in record time

 

This blog is also available 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 Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.

Author: James E. Harper, Senior Product Manager (Knovel /Elsevier).

Keywords: Information literacy; digital literacy; misleading information; source and data reliability; ethical behaviour; sustainability. 

Who is this article for?: This article should be read by educators at all levels in higher education who wish to integrate technical information literacy into the engineering and design curriculum or module design. It will also help to provide students, particularly those embarking on Bachelor’s or Master’s research projects, with the integrated skill sets that employers are looking for, in particular, the ability to critically evaluate information. 

 

Introduction:

In an era dominated by digital information, engineering educators face the critical challenge of preparing students not just in technical skills, but in navigating the complex digital landscape with an ethical compass. This article explores how integrating information and digital literacy into engineering education is not only essential for fostering ethical behaviour but also crucial for ensuring sustainability in engineering practices. 

The intertwined nature of information and digital literacy in engineering is undeniable. Engineering practitioners need to be able to select and critically assess the reliability of the information sources they use to ensure they comply with ethical practice.  The Engineering Council and Royal Academy of Engineering’s Joint Statement of Ethical Principles underscores the need for accuracy and rigour, a core component of these literacies. Faculty members play a pivotal role in cultivating these skills, empowering students and practitioners to responsibly source and utilise information. 

 

The challenge of information overload:

One of the challenges facing trained engineers, engineering faculty and students alike is that of accessing, critically evaluating, and using accurate and reliable information.  

A professional engineer needs to gather insights and information to solve problems, deliver projects, and drive innovation. This involves undertaking as much research as possible: looking at case-studies, standards, best practices, and examples that will support or disprove what they think is the best approach. In a profession where the analysis of failures is a core competence, critical, dispassionate thinking is vital.  In fact, to be digitally literate, an ethically responsible engineer must know how to access, evaluate, utilise, manage, analyse, create, and interact using digital resources (Martin, 2008). 

Students, while adept at online searching, often struggle with assessing the credibility of sources, particularly information gleaned on social media, especially in their early academic years. This scenario necessitates faculty guidance in discerning reputable and ethical information sources, thereby embedding an ethical approach to information use early in their professional development. 

 

Accuracy and rigour:

Acquisition of ‘information literacy’ contributes to compliance with the Statement of Ethical Principles in several ways. It promotes the ‘accuracy and rigour’ essential to engineering. It guarantees the basis and scope of engineering expertise and reliability so that engineers effectively contribute to the well-being of society and its safety and understand the limits of their expertise. It also contributes to promoting ‘respect for the environment and public good’, not just by ensuring safety in design, drawing up safety standards and complying with them, but also by integrating the concept of social responsibility and sustainability into all projects and work practices. In addition, developing students’ capacity to analyse and assess the accuracy and reliability of environmental data enables them to recognise and avoid ‘green-washing’, a growing concern for many of them. 

 

Employability:

In the workplace, the ability to efficiently seek out relevant information is invaluable. In a project-based, problem-solving learning environment students are often confronted with the dilemma of how to refine their search to look for the right level of information from the very beginning of an experiment or research project. By acquiring this ‘information literacy’ competence early on in their studies they find themselves equipped with skills that are ‘workplace-ready’. For employers this represents a valuable competence and for students it constitutes an asset for their future employability. 

 

Tapping into specialised platforms:

In 2006 the then-CEO of Google, Eric Schmidt famously said “Google is not a truth machine”, and the recent wave of AI-powered chatbots all come with a stark disclaimer that they “may display incorrect or harmful information”, and “can make mistakes. Consider checking important information.”  Confronted with information overload and the difficulty of sifting through non-specialised and potentially unreliable material provided by major search engines, students and educators need to be aware of the wealth of reliable resources available on specialised platforms. For example, Elsevier’s engineering-focused, purpose-built platform, Knovel, offers trustworthy, curated engineering content from a large variety of providers. By giving students access to the same engineering resources and tools as professionals in the field it enables them to incorporate technical information into their work and provides them with early exposure to the industry standard. For educators, it offers support for the foundational years of teaching, covering all aspects of problem-based learning and beyond. It is also an efficient way of remaining up-to-date with the latest information and data on key issues. The extensive range of information and data available equips students and engineers with the ability to form well-rounded, critical perspectives on the various interests and power dynamics that play a role in the technical engineering challenges they endeavour to address. 

 

Conclusion:

By embedding information and digital literacy into the fabric of engineering education (such as by using this case study), we not only promote ethical behaviour but also prepare students for the challenges of modern engineering practice. These skills are fundamental to the ethical and sustainable advancement of the engineering profession. 

 

Knovel for Higher Education is an Elsevier product. As a publisher-neutral platform, Knovel helps engineering students explore foundational literature with interactive tools and data.  

46% of EPC members already have access to Knovel.  If you don’t currently have access but would like to try Knovel in your teaching or to brainstorm how you can make the best use of Knovel in your classroom, please contact: Susan Watson,  susan.watson@elsevier.com. Check out this useful blog post from James Harper on exactly that topic here.

Faculty and students can check their access to Knovel using their university email address at the following link: Account Verification – Knovel

 

References:

 

Additional Resources:

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

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 Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.

What are the top ethical issues in engineering today, and how can you incorporate these in your teaching?

In our Engineering Ethics workshop at the 2023 SEFI Conference at TU Dublin, we asked participants what they felt were the top ethical issues in engineering today. This word cloud captured their responses, and the results reveal concerns ranging from AI and sustainability to business and policy and beyond.

When incorporating ethics into a lesson or module, educators might want to find teaching resources that address a topic that’s recently been in the news or something of particular relevance to a group of students or to a project brief. But how can this be done efficiently when there are now so many teaching materials available in our Toolkits?

Fortunately, sifting through available resources in the Ethics Toolkit is now easier than ever, with the release of the new Toolkit search function. The Toolkit search allows users to:

  • Choose from a list of suggested keyword tags;
  • Search by multiple keyword tags or their own search terms;
  • Refine the search results by one of more of the following filters: engineering discipline; educational level; type of content.

It even pulls resources from across different toolkits, if so desired.

Not only will this help you discover and find materials that are right for your educational context, but the search function could even become a teaching tool in itself. For instance, you could poll students with the same question we used in the SEFI Workshop, asking them what they think the top ethical issues are in engineering today, and then design (or co-design) a lesson or activity based on their responses and supported by resources in the Toolkit. If you don’t find resources for a particular issue, that could be a great learning opportunity to0 – why might these topics not be addressed? Of course, you can always create a resource that fills a gap and submit it to be a part of the Toolkit: we would love to see a student-developed case study or activity.

Let us know how you have used the Toolkit search function, and if there are ways we could improve it. Happy searching!

This post is also available 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 Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.

Dr Emma A Taylor, founder of the Engineering Deaf Awareness Project (E-DAP), Royal Academy of Engineering Visiting Professor, Cranfield University, and Professor Sarah Jayne Hitt, PhD SFHEA, NMITE, Edinburgh Napier University, discuss embedding ethics in engineering education through wide use of deaf awareness: a gateway to a more inclusive practice.

“An ethical society is an inclusive society”. This is a statement that most people would find it hard to disagree strongly with. As users of the EPC’s Engineering Ethics Toolkit and readers of this blog we hope our message is being heard loud and clear.

But hearing is a problem:

One in five adults in the UK are deaf, have hearing loss or tinnitus. That is 12 million adults or 20% of the population. In the broader context of‘ ‘communication exclusion’ (practices that exclude or inhibit communication), this population figure may be even larger, when including comprehension issues experienced by non-native speakers and poor communication issues such as people talking over one another in group settings such as during meetings.

This ‘communication exclusion’ gap is also visible in an education context, where many educators have observed group discussion and group project dynamics develop around those who are the most dominant (read: loudest) communicators. This creates an imbalanced learning environment with the increased potential for unequal outcomes. Even though this ‘communication exclusion’ and lack of skills is such a huge problem, you could say it’s hidden in plain sight. Identification of this imbalance is an example of ethics in action in the classroom.

Across all spheres, we suggest that becoming deaf aware is one way to begin to address communication exclusion issues. Simple and practical effective tips are already widely disseminated by expert organisations with deep in the field experience (see list of resources below from RNID). Our collective pandemic experience took us all a great step forward in seeing the benefits of technology, but also in understanding the challenges of communicating through the barriers of technology. As engineering educators we can choose to become more proactive in using tools that are already available, an action that supports a wider range of learners beyond those who choose to disclose hearing or understanding related needs. This approach is inclusive; it is ethical.

And as educators we propose that there is an even greater pressing need to amplify the issue and promote practical techniques towards improving communication. Many surveys and reports from industry have indicated that preparing students for real world work environments needs improving. Although they often become proficient in technical skills, unless they get an internship, students may not develop the business skills needed for the workplace. Communication in all its forms is rightly embedded in professional qualifications for engineers, whether EngTech, IEng, CEng or other from organisations such as the UK’s Engineering Council.

And even when skills are explicitly articulated in the syllabus and the students are assessed, much of what is already being taught is not actually being embedded into transferable skills that are effectively deployed in the workplace. As education is a training ground for professional skills, a patchy implementation of effective and active practice of communication skills in the education arena leads to variable skill levels professionally.

As engineers we are problem solvers, so we seek clarification of issues and derivation of potential solutions through identification and optimisation of requirements. The problem-solving lens we apply to technology can also be applied to finding ways to educate better communicators. The “what” is spoken about in generic terms but the “how”, how to fix and examine root causes, is less often articulated.

So what can be done? What is the practical framework that can be applied by both academics and students and embedded in daily life? And how can deaf awareness help get us there?

Our proposal is to work to embed and deploy deaf awareness in all aspects of engineering education. Not only because it is just and ethical to do so, but because it can help us see (and resolve) other issues.  But this won’t, and can’t, be done in one step. Our experience in the field shows that even the simplest measures aren’t broadly used despite their clear potential for benefit. This is one reason why blogs and toolkits like this one exist: to help educators embed resources and processes into their teaching practice.

It’s important to note that this proposal goes beyond deaf awareness and is really about reducing or removing invisible barriers that exist in communication and education, and addressing the communication problem through an engineering lens. Only when one takes a step back with a deaf awareness filter and gets the relevant training, do your eyes (and ears) open and see how it helps others. It is about improving the effectiveness of teaching and communication.

This approach goes beyond EDI principles and is about breaking barriers and being part of a broader student development approach, such as intellectual, emotional, social, and personal growth. The aim is to get students present and to be in the room with you, during the process of knowledge transfer.

As we work on making our engineering classrooms better for everyone, we are focusing on understanding and supporting students with hearing impairments. We are taking a step back and getting re-trained to have a fresh perspective. This helps us see things we might have missed before. The goal is not just to be aware but to actually improve how we teach and communicate.

We want our classrooms to be inclusive, where everyone’s needs are considered and met. It is about creating an environment where all our students, including those with hearing impairments, feel supported and included in the learning process. And stepping back and taking a whole human (“humanist”) view, we can define education as an endeavour that develops human potential—not just an activity that produces nameless faceless quantifiable outcomes or products. As such, initiatives such as bringing forward deaf awareness to benefit broader communication and engagement provide a measurable step forward into bringing a more humanistic approach to Engineering Education.

So what can you do?

Through the EPC’s growing efforts on EDI, we welcome suggestions for case studies and other teaching materials and guidance that bring together ethics, sustainability and deaf awareness (or other issues of inclusivity).

We’re pleased to report that we are aiming to launch an EDI Toolkit project soon, building on the work that we’ve begun on neurodiversity. Soon we’ll be seeking  people to get involved and contribute resources, so stay tuned! (i.e. “If you have a process or resource that helped your teaching become more inclusive, please share it with us!”).

 

RNID resources list

 

Other resources

 

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 Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.

This article is also available here.

Authors: The Lemelson Foundation; Cynthia Anderson, Sarah Jayne Hitt and Jonathan Truslove (Eds.) 

Topic: Accreditation mapping for sustainability in engineering education. 

Tool type: Guidance. 

Engineering disciplines:  Any.

Keywords: Accreditation and standards; Learning outcomes; AHEP; Student support; Sustainability; Higher education; Students; Teaching or embedding sustainability.

Sustainability competency: Critical thinking; Systems thinking; Integrated problem-solving; Collaboration.

AHEP mapping: This resource addresses themes from the UK’s Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes fourth edition (AHEP4). See details about mapping within the guide. 

Related SDGs: SDG 12 (Responsible consumption and production). 

Reimagined Degree Map Intervention: Adapt and repurpose learning outcomes; More real-world complexity; Cross-disciplinarity.

 

Learning and teaching notes:

This guide, currently under review by the Engineering Council, maps the Engineering for One Planet (EOP) Framework to AHEP4. The EOP Framework is a practical tool for curricular supplementation and modification, comprising 93 sustainability focused learning outcomes in 9 topic areas. 

The Lemelson Foundation, VentureWell, and Alula Consulting stewarded the co-development of the EOP Framework with hundreds of individuals mostly situated in the United States. Now, in collaboration with the EPC and Engineers Without Borders UK, the EOP Framework’s student learning outcomes have been mapped to AHEP4 at the Chartered Engineer (CEng) level to ensure that UK educators can more easily align these outcomes and corresponding resources with learning activities, coursework, and assessments within their modules.  

 

Click here to access the guide

 

Supporting resources: 

EOP Comprehensive Teaching Guide 

EOP’s 13 Step-by-Step Ideas for Integrating Sustainability into Engineering Modules 

EOP Quickstart Activity Guide 

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.  

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 Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters. 

Let us know what you think of our website