A Systematic Literature Review of US Engineering Ethics Interventions
A Systematic Literature Review of US Engineering Ethics Interventions
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s11948-017-9910-6
复制
发表时间：
2018-04-01
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Fore, Grant
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hess, Justin L.;Fore, Grant
通过培养工程专业学生的学科知识、敏感性、想象力和推理能力来促进工程学生的道德形成，已成为美国许多工程教育项目的目标。然而，对于哪些策略对哪些目标最有效，以及哪些目标最重要，整个工程教育界并没有达成共识。本研究通过对 2000 年至 2015 年间在精选同行评审期刊上发表的以工程伦理干预为特色的文章进行系统分析，概述了美国境内的工程伦理干预。作为核心标准，每篇审查的期刊文章必须提供课程概述以及作者如何评估课程学习目标。总之，使用包含 56 个二进制项目的编码方案分析了 26 篇文章。结果表明，将道德规范融入工程的最常见方法包括让学生接触规范/标准、利用案例研究和讨论活动。近一半的文章让学生参与道德启发法或哲学伦理学。在介绍结果之后，本研究详细描述了四篇文章，以强调不太常见但有趣的教学方法和评估技术。研究结果表明，美国工程界的道德教育实证工作有限。此外，由于干预措施中描述的目标、方法和评估方法存在很大差异，本研究没有详细说明将伦理学融入工程的“最佳”实践。科学和工程教育界应继续探索工程伦理教育不同方法的相对优点。
Promoting the ethical formation of engineering students through the cultivation of their discipline-specific knowledge, sensitivity, imagination, and reasoning skills has become a goal for many engineering education programs throughout the United States. However, there is neither a consensus throughout the engineering education community regarding which strategies are most effective towards which ends, nor which ends are most important. This study provides an overview of engineering ethics interventions within the U.S. through the systematic analysis of articles that featured ethical interventions in engineering, published in select peer-reviewed journals, and published between 2000 and 2015. As a core criterion, each journal article reviewed must have provided an overview of the course as well as how the authors evaluated course-learning goals. In sum, 26 articles were analyzed with a coding scheme that included 56 binary items. The results indicate that the most common methods for integrating ethics into engineering involved exposing students to codes/standards, utilizing case studies, and discussion activities. Nearly half of the articles had students engage with ethical heuristics or philosophical ethics. Following the presentation of the results, this study describes in detail four articles to highlight less common but intriguing pedagogical methods and evaluation techniques. The findings indicate that there is limited empirical work on ethics education within engineering across the United States. Furthermore, due to the large variation in goals, approaches, and evaluation methods described across interventions, this study does not detail "best" practices for integrating ethics into engineering. The science and engineering education community should continue exploring the relative merits of different approaches to ethics education in engineering.