Framing Faculty and Student Discrepancies in Engineering Ethics Education Delivery
Background The importance of ethics education in professional engineering preparation programs is well established, yet student outcomes remain mixed despite the efforts of engineering educators. Purpose (Hypothesis) A long line of research has suggested that students and faculty often have differen...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of engineering education (Washington, D.C.) D.C.), 2012-04, Vol.101 (2), p.169-186 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 186 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 169 |
container_title | Journal of engineering education (Washington, D.C.) |
container_volume | 101 |
creator | Holsapple, Matthew A. Carpenter, Donald D. Sutkus, Janel A. Finelli, Cynthia J. Harding, Trevor S. |
description | Background
The importance of ethics education in professional engineering preparation programs is well established, yet student outcomes remain mixed despite the efforts of engineering educators.
Purpose (Hypothesis)
A long line of research has suggested that students and faculty often have different perceptions of educational efforts and practices. In this study, we consider this as a potential reason for the continued mixed results of engineering ethics education by examining differing perceptions of faculty and students about ethics education and identifying contributing factors to those differences.
Design/Method
We conducted focus groups and interviews with engineering undergraduate students, faculty, and administrators on 18 campuses. Transcripts were analyzed using both deductive and inductive analyses and constant comparison. We identified both themes of discrepancies between faculty/administrator and student perceptions and factors in the educational environment that contributed to those discrepancies.
Results
Discrepancies between the perceptions of faculty/administrators were seen in two forms. Faculty/administrators believed that ethics education encompasses teaching about laws, ethical codes, and other black‐and‐white solutions while also addressing more nuanced ethical dilemmas; students reported only experiencing the laws‐and‐rules approach. Students also did not see faculty as the positive ethical role models that faculty believed they are. Factors that contribute to both types of discrepancies are identified and reported.
Conclusions
This approach can be effective in examining difficulties in teaching engineering ethics. Educators should take steps to understand the different ways faculty/administrators and students perceive ethics education, and how factors in the educational environment contribute to differences in those perceptions. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb00047.x |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1016488785</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2670740721</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4357-f46af9c97915755d717234ebd7db3659c14923a3b6c85ccc25eded03669185d93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVkF1PwjAUQBujiYj-h0WfN9t1bVcTHwxsqCEYv-CxKW3BIhRsN4V_7xYM7z7dh3vOvckB4BLBBEGYXi-SFNE85jmGSQpRmlRTCGHGku0R6BxWx6CDIOVxxjA8BWchLBqIQ8o64KX0cmXdPCqlqpfVLpJOR69VrY2ror4NypuNdMqaEFkXFW5unTG-FYrqw6oQFbpWsrJrF_XN0n4bvzsHJzO5DObib3bBe1m89e7j4dPgoXc3jFWGCYtnGZUzrjjjiDBCNEMsxZmZaqanmBKuUMZTLPGUqpwopVJitNEQU8pRTjTHXXC1v7vx66_ahEos1rV3zUuBIKJZnrOcNNTNnlJ-HYI3M7HxdiX9roFE21AsRBtKtKFE21D8NRTbRr7dyz92aXb_MMVjUTS1uyDe-zZUZnvwpf8UlGFGxGQ0EIMxfC75aCwm-Bdw_4fA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1016488785</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Framing Faculty and Student Discrepancies in Engineering Ethics Education Delivery</title><source>EBSCOhost Education Source</source><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>Holsapple, Matthew A. ; Carpenter, Donald D. ; Sutkus, Janel A. ; Finelli, Cynthia J. ; Harding, Trevor S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Holsapple, Matthew A. ; Carpenter, Donald D. ; Sutkus, Janel A. ; Finelli, Cynthia J. ; Harding, Trevor S.</creatorcontrib><description>Background
The importance of ethics education in professional engineering preparation programs is well established, yet student outcomes remain mixed despite the efforts of engineering educators.
Purpose (Hypothesis)
A long line of research has suggested that students and faculty often have different perceptions of educational efforts and practices. In this study, we consider this as a potential reason for the continued mixed results of engineering ethics education by examining differing perceptions of faculty and students about ethics education and identifying contributing factors to those differences.
Design/Method
We conducted focus groups and interviews with engineering undergraduate students, faculty, and administrators on 18 campuses. Transcripts were analyzed using both deductive and inductive analyses and constant comparison. We identified both themes of discrepancies between faculty/administrator and student perceptions and factors in the educational environment that contributed to those discrepancies.
Results
Discrepancies between the perceptions of faculty/administrators were seen in two forms. Faculty/administrators believed that ethics education encompasses teaching about laws, ethical codes, and other black‐and‐white solutions while also addressing more nuanced ethical dilemmas; students reported only experiencing the laws‐and‐rules approach. Students also did not see faculty as the positive ethical role models that faculty believed they are. Factors that contribute to both types of discrepancies are identified and reported.
Conclusions
This approach can be effective in examining difficulties in teaching engineering ethics. Educators should take steps to understand the different ways faculty/administrators and students perceive ethics education, and how factors in the educational environment contribute to differences in those perceptions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1069-4730</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2168-9830</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb00047.x</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JEEDEQ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>College students ; culture ; Educational Environment ; Engineering Education ; environment ; ethics ; Higher education ; Outcomes of Education ; Professional ethics ; Student Attitudes ; Student Experience ; Student Participation ; Studies ; Undergraduate Students</subject><ispartof>Journal of engineering education (Washington, D.C.), 2012-04, Vol.101 (2), p.169-186</ispartof><rights>2012 American Society for Engineering Education</rights><rights>Copyright AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION Apr 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4357-f46af9c97915755d717234ebd7db3659c14923a3b6c85ccc25eded03669185d93</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4357-f46af9c97915755d717234ebd7db3659c14923a3b6c85ccc25eded03669185d93</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fj.2168-9830.2012.tb00047.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fj.2168-9830.2012.tb00047.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1416,27922,27923,45572,45573</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Holsapple, Matthew A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carpenter, Donald D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sutkus, Janel A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Finelli, Cynthia J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harding, Trevor S.</creatorcontrib><title>Framing Faculty and Student Discrepancies in Engineering Ethics Education Delivery</title><title>Journal of engineering education (Washington, D.C.)</title><description>Background
The importance of ethics education in professional engineering preparation programs is well established, yet student outcomes remain mixed despite the efforts of engineering educators.
Purpose (Hypothesis)
A long line of research has suggested that students and faculty often have different perceptions of educational efforts and practices. In this study, we consider this as a potential reason for the continued mixed results of engineering ethics education by examining differing perceptions of faculty and students about ethics education and identifying contributing factors to those differences.
Design/Method
We conducted focus groups and interviews with engineering undergraduate students, faculty, and administrators on 18 campuses. Transcripts were analyzed using both deductive and inductive analyses and constant comparison. We identified both themes of discrepancies between faculty/administrator and student perceptions and factors in the educational environment that contributed to those discrepancies.
Results
Discrepancies between the perceptions of faculty/administrators were seen in two forms. Faculty/administrators believed that ethics education encompasses teaching about laws, ethical codes, and other black‐and‐white solutions while also addressing more nuanced ethical dilemmas; students reported only experiencing the laws‐and‐rules approach. Students also did not see faculty as the positive ethical role models that faculty believed they are. Factors that contribute to both types of discrepancies are identified and reported.
Conclusions
This approach can be effective in examining difficulties in teaching engineering ethics. Educators should take steps to understand the different ways faculty/administrators and students perceive ethics education, and how factors in the educational environment contribute to differences in those perceptions.</description><subject>College students</subject><subject>culture</subject><subject>Educational Environment</subject><subject>Engineering Education</subject><subject>environment</subject><subject>ethics</subject><subject>Higher education</subject><subject>Outcomes of Education</subject><subject>Professional ethics</subject><subject>Student Attitudes</subject><subject>Student Experience</subject><subject>Student Participation</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Undergraduate Students</subject><issn>1069-4730</issn><issn>2168-9830</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqVkF1PwjAUQBujiYj-h0WfN9t1bVcTHwxsqCEYv-CxKW3BIhRsN4V_7xYM7z7dh3vOvckB4BLBBEGYXi-SFNE85jmGSQpRmlRTCGHGku0R6BxWx6CDIOVxxjA8BWchLBqIQ8o64KX0cmXdPCqlqpfVLpJOR69VrY2ror4NypuNdMqaEFkXFW5unTG-FYrqw6oQFbpWsrJrF_XN0n4bvzsHJzO5DObib3bBe1m89e7j4dPgoXc3jFWGCYtnGZUzrjjjiDBCNEMsxZmZaqanmBKuUMZTLPGUqpwopVJitNEQU8pRTjTHXXC1v7vx66_ahEos1rV3zUuBIKJZnrOcNNTNnlJ-HYI3M7HxdiX9roFE21AsRBtKtKFE21D8NRTbRr7dyz92aXb_MMVjUTS1uyDe-zZUZnvwpf8UlGFGxGQ0EIMxfC75aCwm-Bdw_4fA</recordid><startdate>201204</startdate><enddate>201204</enddate><creator>Holsapple, Matthew A.</creator><creator>Carpenter, Donald D.</creator><creator>Sutkus, Janel A.</creator><creator>Finelli, Cynthia J.</creator><creator>Harding, Trevor S.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8A4</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0W</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201204</creationdate><title>Framing Faculty and Student Discrepancies in Engineering Ethics Education Delivery</title><author>Holsapple, Matthew A. ; Carpenter, Donald D. ; Sutkus, Janel A. ; Finelli, Cynthia J. ; Harding, Trevor S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4357-f46af9c97915755d717234ebd7db3659c14923a3b6c85ccc25eded03669185d93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>College students</topic><topic>culture</topic><topic>Educational Environment</topic><topic>Engineering Education</topic><topic>environment</topic><topic>ethics</topic><topic>Higher education</topic><topic>Outcomes of Education</topic><topic>Professional ethics</topic><topic>Student Attitudes</topic><topic>Student Experience</topic><topic>Student Participation</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Undergraduate Students</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Holsapple, Matthew A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carpenter, Donald D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sutkus, Janel A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Finelli, Cynthia J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harding, Trevor S.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Education Periodicals</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>DELNET Engineering & Technology Collection</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Journal of engineering education (Washington, D.C.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Holsapple, Matthew A.</au><au>Carpenter, Donald D.</au><au>Sutkus, Janel A.</au><au>Finelli, Cynthia J.</au><au>Harding, Trevor S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Framing Faculty and Student Discrepancies in Engineering Ethics Education Delivery</atitle><jtitle>Journal of engineering education (Washington, D.C.)</jtitle><date>2012-04</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>101</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>169</spage><epage>186</epage><pages>169-186</pages><issn>1069-4730</issn><eissn>2168-9830</eissn><coden>JEEDEQ</coden><abstract>Background
The importance of ethics education in professional engineering preparation programs is well established, yet student outcomes remain mixed despite the efforts of engineering educators.
Purpose (Hypothesis)
A long line of research has suggested that students and faculty often have different perceptions of educational efforts and practices. In this study, we consider this as a potential reason for the continued mixed results of engineering ethics education by examining differing perceptions of faculty and students about ethics education and identifying contributing factors to those differences.
Design/Method
We conducted focus groups and interviews with engineering undergraduate students, faculty, and administrators on 18 campuses. Transcripts were analyzed using both deductive and inductive analyses and constant comparison. We identified both themes of discrepancies between faculty/administrator and student perceptions and factors in the educational environment that contributed to those discrepancies.
Results
Discrepancies between the perceptions of faculty/administrators were seen in two forms. Faculty/administrators believed that ethics education encompasses teaching about laws, ethical codes, and other black‐and‐white solutions while also addressing more nuanced ethical dilemmas; students reported only experiencing the laws‐and‐rules approach. Students also did not see faculty as the positive ethical role models that faculty believed they are. Factors that contribute to both types of discrepancies are identified and reported.
Conclusions
This approach can be effective in examining difficulties in teaching engineering ethics. Educators should take steps to understand the different ways faculty/administrators and students perceive ethics education, and how factors in the educational environment contribute to differences in those perceptions.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb00047.x</doi><tpages>18</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1069-4730 |
ispartof | Journal of engineering education (Washington, D.C.), 2012-04, Vol.101 (2), p.169-186 |
issn | 1069-4730 2168-9830 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1016488785 |
source | EBSCOhost Education Source; Wiley Online Library All Journals |
subjects | College students culture Educational Environment Engineering Education environment ethics Higher education Outcomes of Education Professional ethics Student Attitudes Student Experience Student Participation Studies Undergraduate Students |
title | Framing Faculty and Student Discrepancies in Engineering Ethics Education Delivery |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-14T08%3A28%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Framing%20Faculty%20and%20Student%20Discrepancies%20in%20Engineering%20Ethics%20Education%20Delivery&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20engineering%20education%20(Washington,%20D.C.)&rft.au=Holsapple,%20Matthew%20A.&rft.date=2012-04&rft.volume=101&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=169&rft.epage=186&rft.pages=169-186&rft.issn=1069-4730&rft.eissn=2168-9830&rft.coden=JEEDEQ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb00047.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2670740721%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1016488785&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |