English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This research aims to increase our understanding of institutional variations in the education of undergraduate engineering/computing students about ethics and societal impacts (ESI). In alignment with Input-Environment-Output models and Lattuca and Stark’s Academic Plan Model, it was expected that differences in institutional cultures could manifest in the ESI educational perceptions and practices of faculty. About 1400 engineering educators responded to an online survey in spring 2016. From among the responses, there were 22 institutions represented by 9 to 24 respondents who spanned 5 or more disciplines at each institution. There were not significant differences in the percentage of institutionally-grouped respondents who taught the majority of ESI-related topics (e.g. safety, environmental protection). However, institutional differences were found for a few ESI-related topics such as social justice (0 to 63%) and poverty (0-46%). Differences in the curricular models for ESI education were also evident among the 22 institutions; e.g. ESI education in first-year design-focused courses, professional issues courses, and full courses on ethics varied. The percentage of the faculty who believed that undergraduate students in their program received sufficient education on ethics ranged from 90% of the faculty respondents at one institution to only 14% at another. At the two high and low ‘outlier’ institutions for ethics educational sufficiency perceptions, mission and vision statements, institution level outcomes, and course requirements for undergraduates were explored using online documents. The institution with the lowest sufficiency rating integrated ethics education into its objectives and teaching within engineering less than the two institutions where the greatest percentage of faculty viewed ethics education in engineering as sufficient. However, at the institution where only 20% of the faculty viewed undergraduate ethics education as sufficient, the integration of ethics education for engineers and support from the institutional mission appeared strong. The results point to the importance of future qualitative research to explore the extent to which faculty perceive the culture of their institution, college/school of engineering, and/or engineering department as supportive of ESI education for undergraduate students.

Institutional Variations in Ethics and Societal Impacts Education: Practices and Sufficiency Perceptions Among Engineering Educators