Development of a Taxonomy of Keywords for Engineering Education Research

The diversity of engineering education research provides an opportunity for cross‐fertilization of ideas and creativity, but it also can result in fragmentation of the field and duplication of effort. One solution is to establish a standardized taxonomy of engineering education terms to map the field and communicate and connect research initiatives. This report describes the process for developing such a taxonomy, the EER Taxonomy. Although the taxonomy focuses on engineering education research in the United States, inclusive efforts have engaged 266 individuals from 149 cities in 30 countries during one multiday workshop, seven conference sessions, and several other virtual and in‐person activities. The resulting taxonomy comprises 455 terms arranged in 14 branches and six levels. This taxonomy was found to satisfy four criteria for validity and reliability: (1) keywords assigned to a set of abstracts were reproducible by multiple researchers, (2) the taxonomy comprised terms that could be selected as keywords to fully describe 243 articles in three journals, (3) the keywords for those 243 articles were evenly distributed across the branches of the taxonomy, and (4) the authors of 31 conference papers agreed with 90% of researcher‐assigned keywords. This report also describes guidelines developed to help authors consistently assign keywords for their articles by encouraging them to choose terms from three categories: (1) context/focus/topic, (2) purpose/target/motivation, and (3) research approach.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/116010/1/jee20101.pd

An Exploratory Investigation of the Ethical Behavior of Engineering Undergraduates

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/95635/1/j.2168-9830.2012.tb00053.x.pd

Strategies to mitigate student resistance to active learning

Abstract Background Research has shown that active learning promotes student learning and increases retention rates of STEM undergraduates. Yet, instructors are reluctant to change their teaching approaches for several reasons, including a fear of student resistance to active learning. This paper addresses this issue by building on our prior work which demonstrates that certain instructor strategies can positively influence student responses to active learning. We present an analysis of interview data from 17 engineering professors across the USA about the ways they use strategies to reduce student resistance to active learning in their undergraduate engineering courses. Results Our data reveal that instructor strategies for reducing student resistance generally fall within two broad types: explanation and facilitation strategies. Explanation strategies consist of the following: (a) explain the purpose, (b) explain course expectations, and (c) explain activity expectations. Facilitation strategies include the following: (a) approach non-participants, (b) assume an encouraging demeanor, (c) grade on participation, (d) walk around the room, (e) invite questions, (f) develop a routine, (g) design activities for participation, and (h) use incremental steps. Four of the strategies emerged from our analysis and were previously unstudied in the context of student resistance. Conclusions The findings of this study have practical implications for instructors wishing to implement active learning. There is a variety of strategies to reduce student resistance to active learning, and there are multiple successful ways to implement the strategies. Importantly, effective use of strategies requires some degree of intentional course planning. These strategies should be considered as a starting point for instructors seeking to better incorporate the use of active learning strategies into their undergraduate engineering classrooms.https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/142791/1/40594_2018_Article_102.pd

The Role of Moral Philosophy in Promoting Academic Integrity Among Engineering Students

Academic dishonesty is nothing new, yet it is particularly disturbing to find among engineering students, whose professional lives need to be guided by the highest ethical standards. Moral philosophy may illuminate some of the conditions for recovering a sense of the ethical for engineering students. Classical moral philosophers held that people belong to communities in ways that inform their sense of obligation. Recognition of these communities would make concrete the engineer\u27s responsibility for the health, safety and welfare of the public. A further difficulty is that the primary community that students know is simply that of their peers in school or the workplace, which does not form a sufficient context for the sense of moral obligation inherent in the engineer\u27s role. This paper seeks to define the moral obligation of the engineer using traditional moral philosophy and describe how this obligation might be translated into a more positive definition of success. It also addresses means by which educators can help engineering students to better understand their moral obligation

Engineering Students' Perceptions of and Attitudes Towards Cheating

Academic dishonesty has become a serious problem at institutions of higher learning. This is particularly true in engineering where, according to previous research, engineering undergraduates are among the most likely to cheat in college. To investigate this concern, the authors embarked on a research project whose goal was to develop a better understanding of what students and faculty perceive as cheating and to use this knowledge to help instructors and institutions increase the level of academic integrity among students. The primary instrument for this project was a seven‐page survey that was administered to 643 engineering and pre‐engineering undergraduates at eleven institutions, ranging from community colleges to large research universities. This manuscript provides an overview of the descriptive data from the PACES‐1 Survey organized around the following questions: what is student cheating and how often does it occur; why do students cheat; and what methods can be used to reduce or stop cheating?Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/94862/1/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00891.x.pd

Work in progress - A Mixed-Methods Approach to Developing an Instrument Measuring Engineering Students\u27 Positive Ethical Behavior

Ethics education and the drive to produce ethical professional engineers is an important focus of one body of research on engineering education. This research often defines the positive outcome of ethics education as students and professional engineers choosing not to engage in unethical behavior. This paper discusses a portion of a larger research project and details efforts to identify and validate a definition of ethical behavior that includes the decision to engage in a positive behavior, defined as a service to a larger community. Through a series of interviews and focus groups with engineering administrators, faculty, and students, the authors attempt to confirm the construct validity of service participation as ethical behavior. They also investigate the validity of the aspects of service participation to be included as a part of a national survey on engineering ethics education practices and outcomes. They then discuss the final steps that will be taken to test and further validate the development of the service participation portion of the survey

Using Research to Identify Academic Dishonesty Deterrents Among Engineering Undergraduates

The E3 Research Team, lead by the authors, has conducted several major investigations and has surveyed and/or interviewed over 1500 engineering and non-engineering undergraduates at 23 institutions [http://www.engin.umich.edu/research/e3/]. The team is motivated by decades of work showing engineering students are among the most frequent cheaters as well as by studies indicating a correlation between cheating and unethical professional behavior. The team’s research suggests that the explanation for higher rates of cheating among engineering students may lie in curricular or engineering program cultural differences rather than in differences in opportunities to cheat or in the nature of students entering these disciplines. The team has also identified a willingness of students to engage in dishonest behaviors that have significant punitive consequences, a clear relationship between students’ attitude toward a behavior and their propensity to engage in that behavior, and a strong correspondence between cheating in high school and college and engaging in unethical behaviors in the workplace. As such, to promote integrity it is important to identify key pedagogical interventions. This paper will summarize some of the team’s important research findings and will discuss psychological and physical deterrents to cheating and their apparent effectiveness. The paper translates these findings into practical suggestions for educators and professionals interested in promoting integrity in the curriculum and the classroom.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/86094/1/E3_Deterrents_Carpenter_et_al_2010.pd

An Examination of Student Experiences Related to Engineering Ethics: Initial Findings

National Science FoundationPeer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/83694/1/2009_ASEE_Sutkus_et_al_Initial_Findings.pd

Engineering culture and the ethical development of undergraduate students

The Survey of Engineering Ethical Development is a holistic assessment of the curricular and co-curricular experiences of engineering undergraduates that lead to improved ethical development. This project will collect data from 4,000 undergraduates at 20 universities in the United States. We present a qualitative analysis of the cultural summaries from the first 10 of these site visits. In particular we consider how students, faculty, and administrators view ethics education within the context of the engineering academic culture. Students, faculty, and administrators viewed ethics instruction as an important aspect of engineering education, though they also highlighted numerous barriers to its implementation. Furthermore, each group of participants commented on the apparent disconnect between the emphasis placed on academic ethics and that placed on professional ethics. Based on these findings, we make a number of recommendations to overcome the integration of ethics in engineering curricula and to better unify academic and professional ethics.National Science FoundationPeer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/83693/1/REES_2009_Harding_et_al_Engineering_Culture.pd