Integration of Ethics-Focused Modules into the Steps of the Engineering Design Process

Despite a consensus that engineering students need exposure to ethical decision-making, the degree to which ethics are incorporated into undergraduate curricula remains varied. At Duke University, the engineering departments use a patchwork approach to ethics education, although all students are exposed to ethics in the capstone design course. A new, required first-year design course (EGR 101) for all incoming engineering students presented an opportunity to strengthen students’ ability to recognize ethical and professional responsibilities and to make informed judgments. EGR 101 is a project-based design course in which student teams are matched with clients in the community to solve an identified problem. Through the work of creating the solutions to these problems, the teams learn about and apply the engineering design process. The design process consists of seven steps: clarifying the team assignment, understanding the problem, defining design criteria, brainstorming solutions, evaluating solutions, prototyping, and testing. Steps in the design process are taught using a flipped classroom method, in which students watch videos detailing the process prior to class. Then, in class, students complete short in-class activities before applying that knowledge to their team’s design challenge. To incorporate engineering ethics into EGR 101, a joint faculty and student team with expertise in engineering and ethics developed the described materials. After establishing learning outcomes, the team targeted different steps of the engineering design process to situate ethical discussions. The team utilized the very same design process to develop course modules that would achieve these learning outcomes. Ultimately, the team created four engineering ethics modules that include videos and short in-class activities. Implemented in Fall 2020, the modules correspond with and are embedded within the four steps of the engineering design process: 1. Systems Mapping. Students learn to identify the people, societal issues, and materials that are integral to the assigned team project’s problem space. Through drawing a systems map, students analyze how their project and its intended goal connect to the world around them. 2. Pairwise Comparison Chart Activity. Students assume the role of various stakeholders (those invested in the project in some way) to complete a pairwise comparison chart, thus simulating how different stakeholders make trade-offs when determining important design criteria. 3. Testing Game Show. As students test their own products, the entire class is brought together to compete in an interactive, game-show style activity about the ethics of product testing. Then, students design testing plans for their project that are both effective and consider related ethical questions. 4. Game of Life Cycle. Students engage in a Life Cycle carnival game in which teams rotate through five stations of activities. These stations have been designed to teach and to encourage thoughtful discussions about the ethical and environmental implications of the materials that students used in their design solution. Achievement of these goals was measured using an IRB-approved pre/post study, which recognized that each student would enter the course at a different point of ethical awareness. The assessment questionnaire was based on a combination of the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ) [1] and a novel instrument focused on the intersection of technology and ethics developed by faculty at Duke University. With data collected in Fall 2020, we analyzed student survey data and found few significant results. In summary, the suite of developed modules that are embedded into the first-year engineering design course should lead to the development of an ethical mindset at the outset of students’ engineering education. Overview of Ethics Education in Engineering Despite a consensus that ethics is an important topic for engineering students, its incorporation into undergraduate courses remains mixed [2] [3] [4]. Currently, the ABET Student Outcome #4 in Criterion 3 requires that graduates have “an ability to recognize ethical and professional responsibilities in engineering situations and make informed judgments, which must consider the impact of engineering solutions in global, economic, environmental, and societal contexts” [5]. Since ABET 2000, the language around ethics in Criterion 3 has been vague, with the intention to give departments and programs flexibility to implement ethical content as they see fit. However, the nonspecific language may have contributed to uncertainty about the role of ethics in engineering education, yielding uneven educational outcomes in the first ten years of its implementation [6]. For many programs, Criterion 3 remains one of the most challenging elements to effectively integrate into engineering curricula [7]. The apparent difficulties of incorporating ethics into engineering curricula make it no less of a worthy effort. It is important to include ethics in engineering education because engineers shape the built and digital world as we know it. Unlike many formula-driven, technical courses, ethical thought and action require evaluating issues whose importance may change with context [4] [8]. Disappointing performance on the Ethics section of the Fundamental Engineering exam demonstrates the failure of some current engineering programs to inculcate ethical thinking in the minds of engineering students [9]. In this section, we offer a very brief overview of some important works and trends in the field. When engineering courses feature ethics, they typically rely on strictly philosophical or professional approaches to engineering ethics [8]. Our team’s survey of available courses in engineering programs suggests that many employ textbooks (e.g. [10] [11] [12]) and the “big three” ethical frameworks of deontology, consequentialism, and virtue ethics to ground students’ understanding of ethics. Recently, some philosophers have challenged the idea of the straightforward application of ethical theory in engineering education, arguing that formal discussion of abstract moral theories may be a less effective approach in such an applied field. Indeed, if engineering students fail to see the relevance of the ethical training they receive, ethics education may actually become counter-productive [13] [14]. Alternatively, some engineering programs take a more compliance-oriented approach, solely framing engineering ethics around engineering codes of ethics [4]. However, such an approach narrows the scope of concern to only what is currently enshrined in professional engineering codes of conduct, leaving out potentially important considerations such as sustainability or social justice [15]. Teaching ethics in the context of design offers an alternative to purely philosophical or professional approaches. Research has shown that the most effective pedagogies often mirror the future work environment and require complex thinking [16]. Contemporary design practices, including participatory design, human-centered design, and co-design, respectively, are often structured around ethical concepts such as virtue, alterity (the assumption of the existence of an alternative way of thinking), and pragmatist ethics [17]. Indeed, one designer noted “when we open the ‘black boxes’ of design practices, we find them filled with ethics,” suggesting that design practitioners should make explicit the inherent ethical qualities of their practices [17]. Given that design and ethics are natural cognates, some have suggested that the most promising methods for teaching engineering ethics incorporate interactive design and service-learning projects [3] [16] [18]. Placing a reinvigorated emphasis on design can effectively combine the relative strengths of professional and philosophical approaches to engineering ethics education while minimizing the weaknesses of either approach. As Genova and Gonzalez argue, “the analogy between ethical problems and design problems is also very much connected with virtue ethics and the proper reflection on the nature of engineering as a human activity” [19]. This is further compounded by Roeser’s observation that design is not value-free; thus, design forces engineering students to confront their values [20]. Also discussed in the literature is the timing and frequency with which students should be challenged with ethical situations within their engineering course of study. In some programs, the discussion of ethics has been relegated to a capstone design course with a “one and done” approach. While we agree that capstone design courses offer a powerful opportunity to strengthen engineering ethics education, we support the claim that one exposure to ethical thinking in capstone design is insufficient. Instead, ethics education should be integrated throughout the curriculum and should engage students through different methods. For example, to diversify the types of learning methods, the use of interactive games enables students to progress beyond the regurgitation of ethical concepts, forcing them to practice these ethical principles [21]. Ethics Education in Duke Engineering & the Scaffolding Ethics Team Like many schools, ethics is consistently incorporated into senior design courses in the Pratt School of Engineering at Duke University. While these courses place a notable emphasis on ethics, the leadership and instructors within the first-year program felt strongly that attention to engineering ethics should be incorporated at the outset of a student’s academic career. In addition, many of the instructors in the first-year design course noted regular discussions with students about tradeoffs and ethical dilemmas embedded in their project. Thus, the goal of the Scaffolding Ethics project was to more systematically incorporate ethical considerations into the first-year engineering design course. During the academic