在工程伦理教育中使用案例研究:通过利益相关者参与和现实生活数据进行沉浸式场景的案例

D. Martin, E. Conlon, B. Bowe
{"title":"在工程伦理教育中使用案例研究:通过利益相关者参与和现实生活数据进行沉浸式场景的案例","authors":"D. Martin, E. Conlon, B. Bowe","doi":"10.1080/22054952.2021.1914297","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Our contribution is part of a broader study conducted in cooperation with the national accreditation body Engineers Ireland that examined the conceptualisation and education of ethics in engineering programmes in Ireland. The paper is a qualitative examination of the use of case studies in engineering ethics education and includes 23 engineering programmes from 6 higher education institutions in Ireland. The qualitative study aims to determine (RQ1) how cases are selected, (RQ2) the goals envisioned for engineering ethics case instruction, (RQ3) the characteristics of the scenarios employed and (RQ4) the preferred application by instructors. A first finding notes the diverse set of goals and application of ethics case studies. The focus is more on decision-making in professional contexts and less on power relations, equity and the broader societal mission of engineering. The second finding highlights the discrepancy between how instructors employ cases and their preferred application. Engineering ethics cases typically include individualistic, hypothetical and historical scenarios. Nevertheless, instructors favour immersive cases set in real or realistic contexts of practice, containing factual or real-time data, which can provoke students to reflect on broader ethical issues. Considering this aspirational discrepancy, we conclude with recommendations that can guide the development of engineering ethics case instruction.","PeriodicalId":38191,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Journal of Engineering Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"16","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Using case studies in engineering ethics education: the case for immersive scenarios through stakeholder engagement and real life data\",\"authors\":\"D. Martin, E. Conlon, B. Bowe\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/22054952.2021.1914297\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Our contribution is part of a broader study conducted in cooperation with the national accreditation body Engineers Ireland that examined the conceptualisation and education of ethics in engineering programmes in Ireland. The paper is a qualitative examination of the use of case studies in engineering ethics education and includes 23 engineering programmes from 6 higher education institutions in Ireland. The qualitative study aims to determine (RQ1) how cases are selected, (RQ2) the goals envisioned for engineering ethics case instruction, (RQ3) the characteristics of the scenarios employed and (RQ4) the preferred application by instructors. A first finding notes the diverse set of goals and application of ethics case studies. The focus is more on decision-making in professional contexts and less on power relations, equity and the broader societal mission of engineering. The second finding highlights the discrepancy between how instructors employ cases and their preferred application. Engineering ethics cases typically include individualistic, hypothetical and historical scenarios. Nevertheless, instructors favour immersive cases set in real or realistic contexts of practice, containing factual or real-time data, which can provoke students to reflect on broader ethical issues. Considering this aspirational discrepancy, we conclude with recommendations that can guide the development of engineering ethics case instruction.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38191,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australasian Journal of Engineering Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"16\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australasian Journal of Engineering Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/22054952.2021.1914297\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australasian Journal of Engineering Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/22054952.2021.1914297","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

摘要

我们的贡献是与国家认证机构爱尔兰工程师合作进行的一项更广泛的研究的一部分,该研究检查了爱尔兰工程项目中伦理的概念化和教育。本文对工程伦理教育中案例研究的使用进行了定性研究,包括来自爱尔兰6所高等教育机构的23个工程项目。定性研究旨在确定(RQ1)如何选择案例,(RQ2)工程伦理案例教学的目标,(RQ3)所采用场景的特征,以及(RQ4)教师首选的应用。第一个发现注意到道德案例研究的不同目标和应用。课程的重点更多地放在专业背景下的决策上,而不是权力关系、公平和工程学更广泛的社会使命。第二个发现凸显了教师使用案例的方式与他们偏好的应用之间的差异。工程伦理案例通常包括个人主义的、假设的和历史的场景。然而,教师更喜欢沉浸式案例,这些案例设置在真实或现实的实践背景中,包含事实或实时数据,这可以激发学生反思更广泛的道德问题。考虑到这种期望差异,我们最后提出了指导工程伦理案例教学发展的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Using case studies in engineering ethics education: the case for immersive scenarios through stakeholder engagement and real life data
ABSTRACT Our contribution is part of a broader study conducted in cooperation with the national accreditation body Engineers Ireland that examined the conceptualisation and education of ethics in engineering programmes in Ireland. The paper is a qualitative examination of the use of case studies in engineering ethics education and includes 23 engineering programmes from 6 higher education institutions in Ireland. The qualitative study aims to determine (RQ1) how cases are selected, (RQ2) the goals envisioned for engineering ethics case instruction, (RQ3) the characteristics of the scenarios employed and (RQ4) the preferred application by instructors. A first finding notes the diverse set of goals and application of ethics case studies. The focus is more on decision-making in professional contexts and less on power relations, equity and the broader societal mission of engineering. The second finding highlights the discrepancy between how instructors employ cases and their preferred application. Engineering ethics cases typically include individualistic, hypothetical and historical scenarios. Nevertheless, instructors favour immersive cases set in real or realistic contexts of practice, containing factual or real-time data, which can provoke students to reflect on broader ethical issues. Considering this aspirational discrepancy, we conclude with recommendations that can guide the development of engineering ethics case instruction.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
期刊最新文献
ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, SciSpace and Wolfram versus higher education assessments: an updated multi-institutional study of the academic integrity impacts of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) on assessment, teaching and learning in engineering Development of the Bipolar Junction Transistor Diagnostic Test (BJTDT) to explore the second-year undergraduate Myanmar electronic and Thai electrical engineering students’ understanding of BJT working principles and applications Unfolding learning difficulties in engineering drawing problem solving Unfolding learning difficulties in engineering drawing problem solving Recontextualising the teaching learning cycle within engineering education to improve the development of written communication skills
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1