Development of the ENACT Model for Cultivating Social Responsibility of College Students in STEM Fields

This study aims to introduce the ENACT model, which is a systematic teaching-learning model for cultivating social responsibility of science and engineering college students, and to discuss its educational implications. For the development of the ENACT model, we conducted extensive literature reviews on RRI, STEM education, and science and technology studies (STS). In addition, we examined exemplary overseas education programs emphasizing social responsibility of scientists/engineers and citizens. The ENACT model consists of five steps; 1) Engage in SSIs, 2) Navigate SSIs, 3) Anticipate consequences, 4) Conduct scientific and engineering practice, and 5) Take action. This model links Socioscientific Issues (SSI) education with engineering education, dividing the major elements of social responsibility education for scientists and engineers into the dimensions of epistemology and praxis, and reflected them in the model. This effort enables science and engineering college students to pursue more responsible and sustainable development by carrying out the responsible problem-solving process based on an understanding of the nature of science and technology. We plan to implement ENACT model based programs for science and engineering college students and to examine the effects.2

Exploring the Views of College Students in STEM Fields on the Social Responsibility of Scientists and Engineer

This study aimed to investigate the views of STEM college students on the social responsibility of scientists and engineers. A total of 660 students in STEM majors at several Korean universities participated in the study. We assessed social responsibility among college students in STEM majors using the VSRoSE scale, which taps into eight different domains of social responsibility: Concern for human welfare and safety (HUMAN), Concern for environmental sustainability (ENVIR), Consideration of societal risks and consequences (CONSEQ), Consideration of societal risks and consequences (CONSEQ), Consideration of societal needs and demands (NEEDS), Pursuit of the common good (COMGOOD), Civic engagement and services (CIVIC), Communication with the public (COMMU), and Participation in policy decision-making (POLICY). Group differences in social responsibility by gender, majors, and years in school were examined. Mean scores in HUMAN, ENVIR, and CONSEQ were relatively higher than those in NEEDS, COMGOOD, CIVIC, COMMU, and POLICY. Cluster analysis identified five different groups with similar patterns of social responsibility scores. In addition to two groups with overall high and low scores across all eight factors of VSRoSE, three additional groups with different combinations of high and low scores in different factors were identified. The results indicated that students with low social responsibility are not homogeneous and these heterogeneous sub-groups of students will need tailored interventions highlighting different factors of social responsibility that they lack. Pedagogical implications of social responsibility for education were discussed.2