Acclimating International Graduate Students to Professional Engineering Ethics

ORI GIN AL PA PER

Acclimating International Graduate Studentsto Professional Engineering Ethics

Byron Newberry Æ Katherine Austin ÆWilliam Lawson Æ Greta Gorsuch Æ Thomas Darwin

Received: 15 July 2009 / Accepted: 14 September 2009 / Published online: 2 October 2009

� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Abstract This article describes the education portion of an ongoing grant-spon-

sored education and research project designed to help graduate students in all

engineering disciplines learn about the basic ethical principles, rules, and obliga-

tions associated with engineering practice in the United States. While the curricu-

lum developed for this project is used for both domestic and international students,

the educational materials were designed to be sensitive to the specific needs of

international graduate students. In recent years, engineering programs in the United

States have sought to develop a larger role for professional ethics education in the

curriculum. Accreditation requirements, as well as pressures from the private sector,

have helped facilitate this shift in focus. Almost half of all engineering graduate

students in the U.S. are international students. Further, research indicates that the

majority of these students will remain in the U.S. to work post-graduation. It is

therefore in the interest of the profession that these students, coming from diverse

backgrounds, receive some formal exposure to the professional and ethical expec-

tations and norms of the engineering profession in the United States to help ensure

B. Newberry (&)

Mechanical Engineering, Baylor University, Waco, TX, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

K. Austin

Information Technology Division & Department of Psychology, Texas Tech University,

Lubbock, TX, USA

W. Lawson

Civil Engineering, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA

G. Gorsuch

Applied Linguistics and Second Language Studies, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA

T. Darwin

Division of Diversity & Community Engagement, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

123

Sci Eng Ethics (2011) 17:171–194

DOI 10.1007/s11948-009-9178-6

that they have the knowledge and skills—non-technical as well as technical—

required in today’s engineering profession. In becoming acculturated to professional

norms in a host country, international students face challenges that domestic stu-

dents do not encounter; such as cultural competency, language proficiency, and

acculturation stress. Mitigating these challenges must be a consideration in the

development of any effective education materials. The present article discusses the

project rationale and describes the development of on-line instructional materials

aimed at helping international engineering graduate students acclimate to profes-

sional engineering ethics standards in the United States. Finally, a brief data sum-

mary of students’ perceptions of the usefulness of the content and instructional

interface is provided to demonstrate the initial effectiveness of the materials and to

present a case for project sustainability.

Keywords Engineering ethics � Instructional materials development �International students � Graduate students � Online instruction

Background: Engineering Ethics Education

Over the past three decades or so there has been growing recognition within the

engineering profession of the importance of professional ethics education for

engineers (e.g., Lynch 1997; Herkert 2000; Newberry 2004; Weil 1984). In the

United States, this is reflected in current accreditation criteria for U.S. undergrad-

uate engineering education programs. Standards from ABET, the national academic

accrediting body for engineering, require engineering students to acquire ‘‘an

understanding of professional and ethical responsibility’’ as well as other

competencies related to appreciating the engineer’s role in society, and engineer-

ing’s impact in the wider world. The underlying presumption is that these ethics

(and related) educational requirements for engineers will contribute to increased

professionalism, to greater awareness of engineering’s societal context, and hence to

the overall welfare of the public. This presumption has gained particular currency in

recent years due to technological, social, and economic conditions that have fostered

a more global engineering profession. Engineers increasingly study, communicate,

travel, and work across national and cultural boundaries. Thus, the scope of

engineering problems and their solutions increasingly transcends the local and

engenders the desire for engineers to be ethically and socially responsible (e.g., NSF

1995; Shuman, et al. 2005; National Academy of Engineering (NAE) 2005).

In response to accreditation standards for ethics and related topics, and more

generally to the imperatives of the twenty-first century engineering landscape, the

engineering academic community has undertaken a flurry of activity to develop

corresponding instructional materials and techniques. The engineering education

literature has burgeoned with articles about teaching ethics, communication skills,

interdisciplinary teamwork, international and cultural studies, and the like. But

ethics education for U.S. engineering undergraduates is still a work in progress, and

there is not yet anything approaching a uniform content, quality, or depth of

instruction across institutions and programs (Stephan 1999; Herkert 2002; Haws

172 B. Newberry et al.

123

2001). Nonetheless, the movement appears to be clearly in the direction of a

sustained emphasis on ethics, whether in the form of specialized ethics courses or

ethics material embedded in existing courses throughout the curriculum. Regardless

of the approach adopted, accredited engineering programs must show that their

graduates have been exposed to ethics content to a level adequate to satisfy

evaluators.

The situation is somewhat different at the graduate level in engineering. There

are not the same accreditation requirements providing an impetus for the

development and delivery of instruction in professional ethics and related topics.

Some efforts are underway to introduce professional engineering ethics instruction

into the graduate realm (e.g., Gorman et al. 2000; Lucena et al. 2007; Riley et al.

2009), not the least of which is the National Science Foundation (NSF) ‘‘Ethics

Education in Science and Engineering’’ program, a cross-cutting initiative

representing all seven directorates in the agency (NSF 2008a). But for the most

part graduate curricula remain models of pristine technical specialization. Hart and

Moore (2007) contend that ‘‘Few researchers have outlined specific suggestions for

including ethics at the graduate level…Yet, graduate students, who stand at the

doorway to future careers as high-level engineers and researchers, have a real need

for exposure to these subjects.’’

In evaluating this lack of attention to engineering ethics at the graduate level, a

distinction must be made between engineering ethics and the ethics involved in the

responsible conduct of research (RCR). In contrast to engineering ethics, RCR is an

area that has garnered considerable recent attention at the graduate level (Council of

Graduate Schools (CGS) 2009; NAE 2008). While the two topics overlap, they are

conceptually distinct, particularly as the concepts are applied to the practical

education and training of future engineers. RCR is tailored specifically to issues

arising in a research environment, and is not specific to engineering—applying to

science, social science, and health disciplines as well. For decades, The National

Institutes of Health has required RCR training as an element of select types of

research grants. Similar requirements appear to be extending to other research

funding agencies due to the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully

Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science [COMPETES] Act. For

example, as of October of 2009, the NSF will require that each institution that

requests funding ‘‘has a plan to provide appropriate training and oversight in the

responsible and ethical conduct of research to undergraduates, graduate students, and

postdoctoral researchers who will be supported by NSF to conduct research’’

(Federal Register 2009). RCR training for graduate students is important for the

quality and competitiveness of the U.S. science and technology research infrastruc-

ture, but this concern is not coequal to the broader concerns of the engineering

profession for the ethical and professional conduct of post-graduate engineers.

National/Cultural Variations in Engineering Ethics

The vast majority of engineering students will enter the engineering workplace upon

completion of the bachelor’s degree (Bradburn et al. 2006). The desire is for them to

Acclimating International Graduate Students 173

123

embark upon their careers with a commitment to responsible and ethical practice, to

include a considered understanding of what that entails. But the specific

expectations placed upon engineers in the United States for professionalism and

ethical conduct are based upon the particular conceptions of engineers’ roles and

obligations that exist in the U.S. Those conceptions are products of the necessarily

unique historical interplay of U.S. engineering professional organizations, the U.S.

engineering industry, U.S. engineering educational institutions, and the wider U.S.

culture and ethos (Lawson 2004). But such societal conceptions of engineering, and

of engineers’ professional responsibilities, have evolved differently in different

countries and cultures, and at different times (Downey et al. 2007; Luegenbiehl

2003a, b, 2004; Didier 1999, 2000; Johnston et al. 2000; Iino 2005; Brumsen 2005;

Hoole and Hoole 2005). As a result, we believe there is a spectrum of what might be

termed engineering cultures and that any two countries may be very close, or

relatively far apart on that spectrum regardless of geographic propinquity. This

broad spectrum, coupled with cultural diversity, further motivates the need to help

international students studying in the United States to learn about American

engineering ethics.

In the U.S., engineering practitioners are generally conceived as members of a

coherent and autonomous profession. Thus, ‘‘at the foundation of the American

engineering ethics is an assumption of moral or professional autonomy which

requires engineers to be independent decision-makers who have the ability to

exercise their professional authority despite possible pressures from institutional

superiors or non-engineering colleagues’’ (Luegenbiehl 2003a). This conception

exists in tension with the fact that 80% of engineers in the U.S. are not

professionally licensed (NCEES 2003), and hence their professional autonomy—

relative to their employers—is not codified or ensured in the same way it might be

for, say, physicians or lawyers. Despite this fact, the U.S. engineering community,

through professional societies and educational curricula, promotes a strong view of

its members—licensed or not—as professionals bound by overarching competencies

and ethical obligations. These ethical obligations are articulated through ethical

codes constructed by engineering professional organizations and emphasized in

undergraduate curricula. But while this professional identity articulated in formal

codes of ethics has been central to engineering in the U.S. over the last century, this

approach has not been followed by the engineering communities of all other

countries. Each country has a subtly unique identity for engineers, and each identity

comes with distinct societal roles, distinct approaches to engineering education, and

distinct requirements for licensing and other legal constraints on the practice of

engineering (requirements which vary widely, ranging from the non-existent to the

strict) (see, for example Hamilton 2000; Iseda 2008). In short, the view of

engineers’ roles and responsibilities in society varies with time and place, and hence

so do perceptions of, and requirements for, engineering ethics education. This is a

point stressed by Downey et al. (2007):

A key variable is the relationship between the identities of engineers, e.g.,

what it means to be an engineer and who counts as an engineer, and the

responsibilities of engineering work, including technical responsibilities. The


123

contents of this relationship have varied significantly over time and from place

to place around the world. As a result, when one inquires into who has counted

as engineers, and what has counted as engineering knowledge and engineering

responsibilities at different times and places, the relatively straightforward

questions—What sorts of ethical issues do engineers typically face on the job?

and What types of education in ethics are appropriate for engineers?—become

significantly variable in meaning and attract remarkably diverse answers.

Past commentary underscores the importance of the cultural component of

projects such as that described in this report. Downey et al. (2007) describes how

differently engineering ethics has evolved in France, Germany, and Japan. In

France, engineers’ identities developed as elite civil servants of the nation state.

‘‘France,’’ writes Didier (1999), ‘‘confers the highest social status on its engineers of

any country in the world.’’ Yet the topic of engineering ethics has received little

explicit attention in France. It has largely been eschewed as redundant for someone

aspiring to the respected status of engineer. In terms of identity, ‘‘In France, a

graduate is first and foremost from his or her school of engineering, before

identifying himself or herself as a computer engineer or a chemical engineer’’

(Didier 1999). This contrasts with other engineering cultures in which engineers

strongly identify with a domain-specific, technical discipline. In Germany,

engineers’ identities are strongly linked with a deep-seated collective social

responsibility that transcends the nation-state. This identity evolved, in part, as a

reaction to the nationalistic abuses of technology during World War II.

German engineers are to evaluate all technologies according to eight metrics

of value in three categories, including functionality, economy, and material

standard of living; safety, health, and environmental quality; and development

of individual personality and quality of social life. The guideline is significant

for engineers because if a particular technology fails to meet any of the

standards, engineers can invoke its provisions and legitimately refuse to

cooperate. The key point is that individual engineers are not left alone to

evaluate the situation on the basis of personal conscience but can find support

in a guideline that has been authorized by the engineering community as a

whole. (Downey et al. 2007)

In Japan, which ‘‘does not have a tradition of professions’’ (Luegenbiehl 2004,

also see Davis 2009), concepts of professionalism and professional ethics for

engineers are in the process of emerging. More traditionally, engineers’ identities

and obligations were strongly determined by the corporate ‘‘households’’ in which

they worked. ‘‘Identification is with the employer rather than with an external group,

so that professional independence is not currently seen as an option for initiating

action. The typical Japanese engineer will identify himself as a ‘‘Toyota man,’’ for

example, rather than as an engineer’’ (Luegenbiehl 2003b; see also Sugihara 2002).

It is important to underscore here that no one country can be seen as producing

ethical or unethical engineers. In fact, anecdotal evidence likely shared by many

readers, suggests that engineers in Japan, Germany, France, or other countries,

conduct their work in an ethical manner. Rather, in each of these cases reviewed


123

above, and each in contrast to the situation in the U.S., distinct identities lead to

different views of what constitutes ethical responsibility for engineers and what

composes adequate engineering ethics education. Additionally, culture contributes

to the interpretation of ethical precepts as they apply to the individual, industry, and

government. Thus countries are markedly different in a wide array of variables with

respect to the underlying framework for ethics education.

Rationale for Addressing International Graduate Students

According to the most recent data provided by the National Science Foundation, of

the approximately 123,000 engineering graduate students in the U.S. in 2006, 45%

were temporary visa holders (NSF 2008b). This percentage is large and has been

growing in recent years. Data on how many of these international students stay in

the U.S. to work after graduation are more difficult to collect and locate (Alberts and

Hazen 2005). Data from a study by Finn (2007) indicates that 70% of the

international recipients of U.S. engineering doctorates awarded in the year 2000

were still in the U.S. 5 years later. And in a 2006 survey, 75% of international

students said they intended to stay in the U.S. after receiving doctorates (across all

disciplines), with engineering fields among those with the highest rates of intention

to stay—e.g., 87% for electrical engineering (Hoffer et al. 2007). Undoubtedly then,

significant numbers of international students come to the U.S. for graduate study in

engineering and then remain to work.

As advanced degree holders, international graduate students who stay in the U.S.

represent individuals who may attain positions of leadership and influence in the

U.S. engineering community, as practitioners, researchers, or academicians.

Students electing to enter academe will play an important role in educating future

U.S. engineers, which includes the mentoring of students in the development of

professional values. Given the current emphasis in the U.S. on professional ethics

education for engineers, it seems reasonable that these international graduate

students—many of whom are soon-to-be U.S. private sector engineers, researchers,

and educators—should develop a working knowledge of the U.S. engineering

profession and, in particular, an understanding of the norms, expectations, and

practices that exist in the U.S. for professional conduct and ethics. But this outcome

is attenuated by two factors highlighted in the foregoing discussion. First, due to

international variation in how engineers and their obligations are perceived, one

cannot assume that international graduate students arrive with a clear understanding

of the U.S. engineering professional culture and its norms. Second, due to the

relative paucity of professional engineering ethics instruction at the graduate level,

there is not a clear formal mechanism to help international students become

acclimated to local professional culture. This lack of ethics instruction at the

graduate level has an asymmetrical effect on domestic students compared to

international students. Ostensibly, the Accreditation Board for Engineering and

Technology (ABET) requirements ensure to some degree that domestic graduate

students have been exposed to U.S. professional ethics at the undergraduate level.

However, as mentioned above, there is little uniformity as yet in undergraduate


123

engineering ethics treatment, so domestic students would benefit from this

instruction no less than international students. From this vantage point, the thesis

of the present work is that international students have an identifiable need for

augmented instruction with regard to professional engineering ethics.

Before delving further into the discussion of the present research, one point needs

to be made abundantly clear. The authors are not suggesting that international

engineering graduate students should be targeted because they are thought to be any

less ethical as a group compared to their U.S. counterparts. Rather, the objective is to

help acclimate individuals to an unfamiliar professional setting—a setting in which

many will seek to embed themselves long term—in order to promote both their

success and effectiveness, as well as the interests of the profession. The rationale for

doing this would be as equally valid for U.S. students studying and working abroad as

it is for international students coming to the United States. In fact, it is such a

rationale that underlies efforts by many U.S. universities to incorporate some type of

cultural/international studies material into undergraduate engineering curricula in

light of the increasing globalization of engineering work. Even assuming that

individuals aspire to conduct themselves according to the highest standards of

professional conduct, they must understand the relevant standards and codes in the

country in which they elect to practice, research, and teach. Such a contextual

understanding must be acquired by some means. Currently, for international graduate

students those means are primarily informal—simply a product of the accrual of

time, observation, collaboration, and experience. U.S. undergraduate engineering

students are not left to these informal means for acquiring knowledge of professional

obligations. The engineering profession has determined that these informal means

are too slow, inefficient, and/or ineffective; thus, it mandates explicit, formalized

instruction. This is a point made by Bird and Sieber (2005):

The science and engineering communities no longer consider it sufficient to

teach the ethics of the professions through example alone. One cannot expect

that students and trainees in science and engineering will be able to decipher,

understand, and adapt to professional standards and values of the community

simply by observing the behavior of senior professionals…observational

learning, alone, is not an efficient method of communicating critical

information.

If such educational intervention is considered necessary for U.S. undergraduates,

who have the advantage of being steeped in the local social culture, if not the local

professional culture, then it seems reasonable to make provisions for instructing

international students as well, since they may be novices in both.

Acculturation Issues

Acculturation is the cognitive and social process through which non-native persons

come to encounter, understand, process, and incorporate socio-environmental norms

and behaviors of a host culture in which they are embedded. Of particular interest in

this work is the acculturation of international graduate students with respect to the


123

values and conventions for the professional conduct and ethical obligations of

engineers in the United States. International graduate students in engineering face a

compound problem of acculturation in that they are seeking to integrate both into a

society and into a profession (a culture within a culture). Bashe et al. (2007) write that

‘‘becoming a professional is similar to adjusting to a different culture.’’ They use the

term ethical acculturation—a reference to the ‘‘similarities between developing a

professional identity and the processes of acculturation of social groups’’—to describe

the process of adapting to the ethical norms and values of a profession. Three important

factors that are strongly predictive of successful acculturation are cultural competency(possessing an array of skills necessary to function successfully in the culture),

language proficiency (a key competency), and acculturation stress (social and

psychological difficulties stemming from problems adjusting to the culture).

Cultural Competency

In evaluating the cultural competency of international graduate students, Rahman

and Rollock (2004) found that cultural competency strongly predicts successful

acculturation. Their research delineated four components of cultural competency:

intercultural attitudes, work (career and academic) productivity, personal/social

efficacy, and intergroup comfort. In a similar study, Wilton and Constantine (2003)

concluded that increased familiarity with cultural and professional norms leads to

better adjustment and quicker acculturation. Huntley (1993) and Poyrazli et al.

(2004) noted that Asian international students struggle the most with cultural

competency, as Asian culture is grounded in principles of dependency and

conformity, which are divergent from the individualism of American culture.

When it comes to promoting cultural competency, the goal is not to assimilate—

i.e., to completely convert students’ identities from their native culture to the host

culture, which would cause them to abandon their culture of origin. ‘‘Assimilating a

person into a culture rather than helping someone learn a second culture could be

ethnocentric…[Instead,] the focus should be on obtaining competence to function in

the host culture rather than the extinction of the native culture’’ (Yoon and Portman

2004). This is consistent with the work of Berry (2005), who finds that integration is

a more productive acculturation strategy that values maintaining a strong native

identity while simultaneously developing a high competency in the host culture.

Integration is preferable to alternative strategies, which include assimilation,

separation (resisting participation in the host culture by retreating into native

culture), and marginalization (a detachment from a prevailing culture). Integration

allows the student to maintain their primary cultural identity and adopt other

cultures as secondary identities. When international students studying in a foreign

country are able to retain their primary cultural identity, they are better able to cope

and exhibit less depression, anxiety, and academic failure (Crockett et al. 2007).

Language Proficiency

Mastery of the English language poses a major challenge for most international

graduate students. In addition to typical writing skills, Gorsuch (2003) discussed


123

communicative competency in terms of sociolinguistic efficacy (speaker ability to

use appropriate language in various contexts), and textual competence (the

organization of language in accordance with normative rhetoric guidelines).

Huntley (1993) noted that the development and requirement of the TOEFL—Test

of English as a Foreign Language—is a testament to the barrier that English

language proficiency poses to international graduate students. The TOEFL is now

required, as the language barrier is extremely common for international students. In

terms of Asian international students, Jiali (2005) and Poyrazli et al. (2004) found

that language barriers are one of the most prominent obstacles to successful

acculturation. Spack (1997) found that international students who do not have

English as their first language do not simply ‘‘pick up’’ the ability to process

academic English as a result of being a student in a U.S. university. They do not

necessarily ‘‘learn as they go’’ and instead learn the English they need to succeed

through variously effective strategies over months and years of experience in

academic settings. It may be useful to point out that just being in the U.S. does not

guarantee improvement in English processing and use.

Acculturation Stress

Acculturation stress is a psychological manifestation that occurs when an individual

struggles with acclimation and adaptation to a new culture. Poyrazli et al. (2004)

identified ethnicity, and associated country of origin, as the major predictor of

acculturative stress and noted that Asian international students suffer higher levels

of acculturative stress, compared to other ethnicities. Further, Jiali (2005) identified

four measurable variables that diagnose acculturative stress: fear, perceived hatred,

perceived discrimination, and cultural shock. Rahman and Rollock (2004)

concluded that acculturative stress was predictive of perceived cultural competency

and successful functioning for international engineering students. Hovey et al.

(2006) demonstrated that acculturation stress has measureable negative impact on

academic performance and mental health. Psychologists have also found that

acculturation stress can be predictive of suicide and/or suicidal ideation (Goldston

et al. 2008; Walker 2007). Of concern in the present project is the impact that

acculturation stress might have on international engineering student learning and

academic achievement. Clearly, previous research indicated that acculturation stress

was an important variable to account for in any educational intervention involving

international students.

Delivery Method: Modular, Online Short Course

The educational process for international graduate students—in the present context,

ethics instruction—will be effective only to the extent that (i) students are reached

by the educational intervention, (ii) the content and pedagogy of the intervention are

appropriate to the learning objectives, and (iii) acculturation barriers typically

present in host country learning materials are diminished sufficiently to permit


123

learning to occur for international students. The latter is in contrast to the situation

for domestic students, for whom, in the absence of cultural impediments, content

and pedagogy more directly predict content mastery. The strategy for developing

the instructional materials described in this work—an online short course—was

directed specifically at maximizing the potential for satisfying each of the above

three criteria.

An important question is how to reach students given the current lack of formal

requirements for professional ethics education in graduate engineering curricula.

The prevalence of professional ethics instruction at the graduate level in engineering

may increase with time in light of efforts such as the current NSF program (2008a)

to promote it. But in the absence of some impetus equivalent to the ABET

accreditation requirements, such a trend is not likely to be either swift or uniform.

To address the present need, the research team elected to create a self-contained

online short course which can be implemented with little institutional/instructor

overhead and offered through a variety of mechanisms. Since the short course

described here can be completed in an independent, self-paced fashion, appropriate

distribution mechanisms for enrollment might include embedding the short course

in an existing graduate course, incorporating it into either a for-credit or informal

graduate seminar, making it required training for assistantship support, including it

as part of an international student orientation experience, or offering it via some

other extracurricular means. The goal is to provide an educational resource that

institutions can easily adopt, which will provide a solid, introductory educational

experience to help international students begin the process of acclimating to the

local professional culture, and which will also result in a credential of value to the

student (i.e., a certificate of completion of an ethics training short course).

Due to cognitive strategies and schemas that quickly develop as people learn

novel environments, the timing of the educational intervention is critical to aiding

students in their acculturation with respect to engineering ethics. Huntley (1993)

delineates four stages of acculturation: (i) anticipatory (before leaving native

country), (ii) passive spectator (first few months in the U.S.), (iii) disenchantment(follows passive spectator and varies in duration based on psychological and

cognitive individual differences), and (iv) adaptation. Based on relevant research in

educational interventions and cognitive theories of learning (e.g. Anderson 1983;

Hillman et al. 1994; Wilton and Constantine 2003), the ideal time to expose

international students to professional engineering ethics instruction is during the

passive spectator stage of their acculturation, early in their graduate careers, in an

attempt to maximize the benefit of the educational intervention. This would be

before the phenomena of maladaptation occurs. Maladaptation may be manifested

in the persistence of poor language skills (oral and written), inaccurate mental

schemas of the host culture, and a misunderstanding of normative values and

practices. From a cognitive and social standpoint, once students reach a point of

maladaptation, they are less malleable and less open to re-learn information about

the host country, the language of the host country, and cultural norms associated

with the host country (Wilton and Constantine 2003; Hillman et al. 1994). While it

is not possible to control when students enroll in the online ethics course, our

research study measures this variable and our student enrollment plans intentionally


123

focus on reaching international students during the passive spectator stage of their

acculturation.

In order to promote the construction of robust mental schemas, decision-making

heuristics, and problem-solving skills, the most efficacious intervention strategies

include the following pedagogical components: education about specific expecta-

tions and demands; education concerning specific skills required for success in the

field; and decision-making strategies (Rahman and Rollock 2004). With regard to

ethical instruction for engineering students, the educational materials described

herein focus on both declarative knowledge (definitions of ethical guidelines, rules,

and regulations) and procedural skills (application exercises, decision-making

exercises, and recognizing ethical dilemmas) (Anderson 2000).

In terms of delivery modality, international students are typically proficient with

Internet-based technologies, as they use these technologies for socialization and

communication with their families at home (Tomlinson-Clark 2001). Furthermore,

web-delivered modules support an educational paradigm and environment that

international students, especially Asian students, are comfortable using. Huntley

(1993) indicated that the international educational cultures are often dramatically

different from American educational culture. For example, the role of both the

student and teacher in Asian culture is very formal and non-interactive, much like

traditional American education in the 1950s (Hillman et al. 1994). Web-based

environments allow students to actively learn through the interface without the

stress of public-speaking and face-to-face interactions. Also, online education is

found to be more effective at the graduate level, where learners have greater levels

of maturity and independence (Sieber 2005).

Flexibility of delivery, potential for wide dissemination, low overhead for

adoption, and accommodation to the needs and skill sets of international graduate

students—these are advantages of self-paced, online instruction. In addition,

Duggan et al. (2001) found that students find online learning to be a positive and

productive form of instruction. Daniel (1999) reported that students found online

learning to be accommodating to their schedules, adaptive to their learning needs,

and more engaging than traditional course delivery. A comprehensive review of

educational research conducted on the efficacy on online learning concluded that

students prefer the self-paced, technology-delivered paradigm for learning com-

pared to traditional classroom instruction (Tallent-Runnels et al. 2006). Online

ethics materials have also been found convenient for use at the undergraduate level

as a mechanism for institutions to meet ABET requirements in the absence of

qualified instructors or curricular space (Bird and Sieber 2005). In comparing

student performance in an online-delivered course to a traditional classroom-

delivered control group, many studies have concluded that the online-delivered

course resulted in better student performance (Hubbard 2000; Maki et al. 2000;

Navarro and Shoemaker 1999).

However, this instructional delivery approach has limitations and challenges that

must be addressed. While self-directed online instruction may be effective for

transmitting declarative knowledge (e.g., definitions and rules) and the elements of

procedural skills (e.g., heuristics for good decision-making), it is not as effective in

providing learn-by-doing experiences or open-ended discourse, both of which are


123

valuable for in-depth ethics education (Kalichman 2005; Schonfeld 2005; Schrag

2005). ‘‘Some critical thinking skills can be achieved through carefully structured

assignments and demonstrations,’’ writes Schonfeld (2005), ‘‘yet none of this is a

true substitute for doing ethics. There is part of the experience—part of the dynamic

that is ethical deliberation—that students simply cannot get in an online medium.’’

In addition, self-directed online learning effectively isolates learners during the

intervention, which is conceptually antithetical to the goal of acculturation. Because

of these limitations, no claim is made here that this short course represents a

complete acculturative education in professional ethics for international graduate

students. Rather, it is intended to be an important starting point and a companion to

other instructional modalities that will enhance the student’s general acculturation.

By reaching international students early in their graduate careers, this educational

intervention aims to equip them with accurate definitions of relevant terminology

and concepts, along with a framework for understanding ethical expectations and

rules as they apply to engineering practice in the United States. Ultimately,

acculturation with respect to professional norms will be a process through time that

will depend greatly upon repeated observations, experiences, and discussions during

interactions with mentors and peers, and then employers and colleagues, as the

student progresses through graduate school and into the work place. But, as stated

by Bird and Sieber (2005), ‘‘Learning by observation requires interpretation;

misinterpretation can lead to misunderstanding and confusion. The rationale and

assumptions that underlie even exemplary behavior are not always obvious.’’ Being

equipped with a baseline context for interpreting observations and experiences, and

a vocabulary for discussing them, will greatly increase the likelihood that such

misunderstanding and confusion is avoided.

The short course was developed in a modular format, with eight main content

modules along with a ninth—optional—study skills module. Each module is

designed to nominally require one hour of time for individuals for whom English is

a second language, using an Internet-connected computer, at a location of their

choosing. The goal in developing the module contents was to identify broad themes

that underlie professional engineering ethics—themes with the potential for

commonality across a spectrum of nationalities and cultures—and then provide

detailed information about how those themes relate to the specific standards and

practices in the U.S. engineering profession. This draws on the approach of

Luegenbiehl (2003a, b, 2004), who has argued for the development of an

international code of ethics that incorporates themes that are common across

national and cultural borders regardless of the specific (and often different) ways in

which the details of those themes manifest themselves in a particular locale. The

globally appropriate themes he extracts from a U.S. view of engineering ethics

include (i) the safety, health, and welfare of the public, (ii) competence, (iii) honesty

and objectivity, (iv) avoidance of conflicts of interest, (v) the need to maintain

appropriate confidentiality, and (vi) fair, merit-based decision making (Luegenbiehl

2003a). A similar approach of developing transnational themes was also used in the

development of the Principles of Ethical Conduct in Engineering Practice Underthe North American Free Trade Agreement, a document developed collaboratively

between the United States, Mexico, and Canada and designed expressly for


123

equivalent wording in French, English and Spanish (Smith and Barrington 1997). In

promoting an international code of ethics, Luegenbiehl takes the U.S. engineering

ethics themes, along with additional themes he identifies from other cultures, and

purposely keeps them general in order to avoid bogging down in the details of how

those themes are interpreted and applied in the many ‘‘specific cultural contexts’’ in

which engineers work (2003b). Here, with a somewhat different goal in mind, the

converse approach is taken. Beginning with these general themes, ones that should

be familiar across a broad range of cultures, the details of how they are applied in

the U.S. cultural context are explored in order to prepare engineers for work in that

context. The eight module topics that were chosen are:

1. Codes of ethics

2. Protecting human life and welfare

3. Competence

4. Honesty

5. Fairness

6. Conflicts of interest

7. Intellectual property & plagiarism

8. Data integrity

9. Learning skills (optional unless the student fails a section)

The topics of modules two through six map directly onto five of the six global

themes of U.S. engineering ethics articulated by Luegenbiehl. His sixth theme,

confidentiality, overlaps material in module seven, Intellectual Property and

Plagiarism, although the module extends beyond that one topic. Since codes of

ethics play a significant role in U.S. engineering culture, but not necessarily in every

non-U.S. culture, module one gives an introduction to the background of codes and

their use in the U.S. context. Module seven is founded on the belief that engineers

and researchers who will be working in the U.S. should be conversant with the

specific laws, rules, and expectations that locally define intellectual property and

guide its proper handling. The plagiarism section of module seven, along with

module eight on data integrity, coincide with elements of responsible conduct of

research (RCR) ethics, a topic with immediacy in the graduate school environment.

Module nine is designed to be a general resource for students who are struggling

with the delivery modality, as well as the mastery of content modules.

Each module consists of the primary textual and graphic information that

conveys the baseline topical content. Embedded within the primary content are

hyperlinks to secondary enhanced content that provides more in-depth information

and/or case studies related to specific sub-topics if students care to pursue a topic

further. Some of these links lead to content pages developed by the authors and

contained within the short course, while others open windows to tertiary content

comprising external sources of information that are available online. In addition to

hyperlinks connected to enhanced content, any words or ideas that have been

identified as potentially problematic for non-native speakers are hyperlinked.

Clicking on these links will open a hovering pop-up containing a definition or brief

explanation. Each hour-long (nominally) module is broken into three sub-modules

of approximately equal length. Each sub-module presents the student with a series


123

of practice questions/exercises requiring student responses in order to facilitate

active learning. A mastery quiz at the end of each module assesses student

comprehension of the material. To complete the ethics short course, students must

pass the mastery quizzes for all eight modules. Mastery quizzes comprise a battery

of multiple choice questions on topics distributed over the contents of the three sub-

modules.

Figure 1 shows a portion of a page from the second sub-module, or Part B, of

Module 2: Protecting Human Life and Welfare. Part B of Module 2 provides an

introduction to how safety and risk are understood for engineers in the United

States. The blue hyperlink ‘‘Read more about this case’’ provides the student with

the opportunity to purse a more in-depth study of the topic—in this instance it opens

a window to an external source with an in-depth analysis of the case. Table 1

provides an outline of the topics across the subunits of each module, along with the

learning objectives for each module.

As the modules were developed, the baseline content on professional ethics was

edited to make the language more accessible to non-native learners and their second

language processing needs. This included eliminating unnecessary jargon, elimi-

nating long, convoluted, or nuanced wording, explicitly defining important

terminology, and avoiding unnecessary cultural references, metaphors, and allusions

that would be unknown to the average non-U.S. citizen. In addition, the authors

Fig. 1 Screen shot taken from the Protection Human Life and Welfare module


123

Tab

le1

Su

b-m

od

ule

san

dle

arn

ing

ob

ject

ives

Module

Sub-m

odule

sL

earn

ing

obje

ctiv

es

Co

des

of

Eth

ics

A.

Pu

rpo

sean

db

ack

gro

un

do

fco

des

of

eth

ics

B.

Str

uct

ure

and

pri

nci

ple

so

fco

des

of

eth

ics

C.

Imp

lem

enti

ng

cod

eso

fet

hic

s

Ex

pla

inth

ep

urp

ose

and

use

of

anen

gin

eeri

ng

cod

eo

fet

hic

s

Iden

tify

the

ph

ilo

sop

hic

alro

ots

of

eng

inee

rin

gco

des

of

eth

ics

Defi

ne

the

dif

fere

nt

elem

ents

of

aco

de

of

eth

ics

Iden

tify

key

Fu

nd

amen

tal

Can

on

so

fE

ng

inee

rin

gE

thic

s

Ex

pla

inru

les

of

pra

ctic

ean

dp

rofe

ssio

nal

ob

lig

atio

ns

for

eng

inee

rs

Iden

tify

ho

wco

des

of

eth

ics

var

yfo

rd

iffe

ren

ten

gin

eeri

ng

dis

cip

lin

es

Des

crib

ea

pro

cess

for

mak

ing

anet

hic

ald

ecis

ion

and

usi

ng

aco

de

of

eth

ics

Pro

tect

ing

Hu

man

Lif

ean

d

Wel

fare

A.

Ser

vin

gan

dp

rote

ctin

gso

ciet

y

B.

Un

der

stan

din

gsa

fety

and

risk

C.

Lev

els

and

typ

eso

fsa

fety

Dem

on

stra

tean

un

der

stan

din

go

fen

gin

eeri

ng

pro

fess

ion

ald

uty

top

rote

cth

um

an

life

and

wel

fare

,in

clu

din

gfu

ture

gen

erat

ion

s

Dem

on

stra

tean

un

der

stan

din

go

fth

eh

old

par

amo

un

tse

ctio

ns

inen

gin

eeri

ng

eth

ical

cod

es

Defi

ne

safe

tyan

dri

sk,

and

iden

tify

the

mai

nsa

fety

issu

esfa

ced

by

eng

inee

rs

Dem

on

stra

tean

un

der

stan

din

go

fh

ow

safe

tyan

dri

skar

em

anag

edin

eng

inee

rin

g

Dem

on

stra

tean

un

der

stan

din

go

fh

ow

safe

tyco

des

are

use

d

Dem

on

stra

tean

un

der

stan

din

go

fen

vir

on

men

tal

imp

act

and

sust

ain

able

eng

inee

rin

g,

and

ho

wth

ese

rela

teto

hu

man

wel

fare

Co

mp

eten

ceA

.C

om

pet

ence

asp

rofe

ssio

nal

du

ty

B.

Sta

nd

ard

sfo

rco

mp

eten

ce

C.

Co

nti

nu

ing

edu

cati

on

Defi

ne

com

pet

ence

asit

rela

tes

toen

gin

eeri

ng

Dem

onst

rate

anunder

stan

din

go

fth

enee

dfo

rco

mpet

ence

and

the

conse

quen

ces

of

inco

mp

eten

ce

Dem

onst

rate

anunder

stan

din

go

fco

mm

on

rule

san

dst

andar

ds

for

com

pet

ence

Dem

onst

rate

anunder

stan

din

go

fth

epurp

ose

sfo

r,an

dst

eps

for

achie

vin

g,

pro

fess

ional

eng

inee

rin

gli

cen

sure

(th

ele

gal

abil

ity

top

ract

ice

eng

inee

rin

g)

Dem

on

stra

tean

un

der

stan

din

go

fth

en

eed

for

con

tin

uin

ged

uca

tio

nan

dli

felo

ng

lear

nin

g

Dem

onst

rate

anunder

stan

din

go

fth

em

ain

met

hods

and

reso

urc

esfo

rac

hie

vin

g

con

tin

uin

g

educa

tion

and

life

long

lear

nin

g


123

Tab

le1

con

tin

ued

Module

Sub-m

odule

sL

earn

ing

obje

ctiv

es

Ho

nes

tyA

.In

tro

du

ctio

nto

ho

nes

ty

B.

Ho

nes

tyan

dth

een

gin

eeri

ng

pro

fess

ion:

Bei

ng

truth

ful

C.

Ho

nes

tyan

dth

een

gin

eeri

ng

pro

fess

ion:

Hones

tju

dgm

ent

Defi

ne

hones

ty,

trust

wort

hin

ess,

inte

gri

ty,

and

obje

ctiv

ity

Dem

on

stra

tean

un

der

stan

din

go

fth

eim

po

rtan

ceo

fh

on

esty

inth

een

gin

eeri

ng

pro

fess

ion

Dem

on

stra

tean

un

der

stan

din

go

fp

rofe

ssio

nal

eth

ical

cod

eit

ems

on

ho

nes

ty

Iden

tify

situ

atio

ns

inw

hic

hh

on

esty

may

be

vio

late

d,

incl

ud

ing

lyin

g,

bia

s,co

nfl

ict

of

inte

rest

,o

mis

sio

n,

fail

ure

toin

form

,an

db

reac

hin

go

fco

nfi

den

tial

ity

Giv

ensi

tuat

ion

ssh

ow

ing

ap

oss

ible

vio

lati

on

of

ho

nes

ty,

stud

ents

wil

lb

eab

leto

iden

tify

anet

hic

alco

urs

eo

fac

tio

n

Fai

rnes

sA

.C

on

cep

tso

fF

airn

ess

B.

Fai

rnes

sin

eng

inee

rin

gp

ract

ice

C.

Pra

ctic

alap

pli

cati

ons

of

fair

nes

s

Ex

pla

ind

iffe

ren

td

efin

itio

ns

of

fair

nes

s

Ex

pla

inth

eim

po

rtan

ceo

ffa

irn

ess

toso

ciet

y

Defi

ne

thre

ed

iffe

ren

tle

vel

so

fh

um

anac

tiv

ity

rela

ted

tofa

irn

ess

Iden

tify

situ

atio

ns

inw

hic

hit

may

be

eth

ical

tosh

ow

spec

ial

trea

tmen

tto

peo

ple

Ap

ply

pri

nci

ple

so

ffa

irn

ess

toco

mm

on

eng

inee

rin

gsi

tuat

ions

Ex

pla

inth

ere

lati

on

ship

bet

wee

nfa

irn

ess

and

eng

inee

rin

gas

go

od

for

soci

ety

Des

crib

ea

pro

cess

for

dec

idin

gth

eco

urs

eo

fac

tio

nth

atis

most

fair

Co

nfl

icts

of

Inte

rest

A.

Defi

nit

ion

of

aco

nfl

ict

of

inte

rest

B.

So

me

com

mon

typ

eso

fco

nfl

ict

of

inte

rest

inen

gin

eeri

ng

C.

Res

olv

ing

confl

icts

of

inte

rest

Defi

ne

con

flic

to

fin

tere

st

Ex

pla

inw

hy

con

flic

tso

fin

tere

star

e‘‘

wro

ng

’’

Dis

tin

gu

ish

aco

nfl

ict

of

inte

rest

fro

mco

nfl

icti

ng

inte

rest

s

Rec

ogn

ize

the

dif

fere

nt

pri

vat

ean

dp

ub

lic

role

sth

atca

nle

adto

con

flic

tso

fin

tere

st

Giv

eex

amp

les

of

typic

alco

nfl

icts

of

inte

rest

inen

gin

eeri

ng

pra

ctic

ean

dre

sear

ch

Sh

ow

wh

ya

par

ticu

lar

situ

atio

nis

aco

nfl

ict

of

inte

rest

Defi

ne

actu

al,

po

ten

tial

and

app

aren

tco

nfl

icts

of

inte

rest

Dis

tinguis

hbet

wee

nav

oid

ance

,div

estm

ent,

and

dis

closu

reas

cure

sfo

rco

nfl

icts

of

inte

rest

Use

eth

ics

cod

esan

do

ther

avai

lab

leg

uid

ance

toso

lve

eth

ical

pro

ble

ms


123

Tab

le1

con

tin

ued

Module

Sub-m

odule

sL

earn

ing

obje

ctiv

es

Inte

llec

tual

Pro

per

ty&

Pla

gia

rism

A.

Pat

ents

and

cop

yri

gh

ts

B.

Tra

de

secr

ets

C.

Pla

gia

rism

Defi

ne

typ

eso

fin

tell

ectu

alp

rop

erty

Dem

onst

rate

anunder

stan

din

go

fth

ebas

icri

ghts

and

rule

sas

soci

ated

wit

hin

tell

ectu

al

pro

per

tyla

w

Iden

tify

anet

hic

alco

urs

eo

fac

tio

nw

hen

giv

enan

exam

ple

of

inte

llec

tual

pro

per

tym

isu

se

Dem

on

stra

tean

un

der

stan

din

go

fth

en

eed

for

citi

ng

oth

ers’

sch

ola

rly

wo

rko

rre

sear

ch

Dem

on

stra

tean

abil

ity

tod

isti

ng

uis

hp

rop

erly

cite

dm

ater

ials

from

pla

gia

rism

Dem

onst

rate

anunder

stan

din

go

fth

eco

nse

quen

ces

of

pla

gia

rism

Dat

aIn

teg

rity

A.

Res

po

nsi

ble

rese

arch

and

the

scie

nti

fic

met

ho

d

B.

To

pd

ata

inte

gri

typ

rob

lem

s

C.

Dat

ain

teg

rity

and

the

resp

on

sib

le

con

du

cto

fre

sear

ch

Un

der

stan

dth

eim

po

rtan

ceo

fd

ata

inte

gri

ty

Rec

ogn

ize

ad

ata

inte

gri

tyv

iola

tio

n

Iden

tify

com

mo

nd

ata

inte

gri

tyv

iola

tio

ns

Un

der

stan

dw

hy

exp

erim

enta

ld

esig

nis

imp

ort

ant

tod

ata

inte

gri

ty

Defi

ne

and

des

crib

eth

esc

ien

tifi

cm

eth

od

Dem

onst

rate

anunder

stan

din

go

fth

eet

hic

alfo

undat

ions

of

the

scie

nti

fic

met

hod

Des

crib

eth

ero

leo

fd

ata

secu

rity

tod

ata

inte

gri

ty

Defi

ne

the

feat

ure

so

fet

hic

alo

nli

ne

dat

aco

llec

tio

n

Iden

tify

crit

ical

dat

ase

curi

tyfe

atu

res


123

reduced the average sentence length and avoided passive voice, as well as any

double negatives. The goal was not to alter or dilute meaning, but instead to convey

content in words more accessible to the learner. In cases where a term that is

potentially unfamiliar to non-native speakers cannot, or should not, be avoided, pop-

ups provide further definition and explanation. In addition to textual considerations,

graphics are used as much as possible in order to provide visual illustrations of the

ideas. As Luegenbiehl (2003a) points out with respect to developing an international

code of ethics for engineers, definitions of terminology must be made as simple and

explicit as possible in order to avoid cross-cultural misinterpretation. In an effort to

minimize cultural bias, each module was subjected to think-aloud usability protocol.

The think-aloud protocol, a technique utilized in human factors investigations and in

cognitive psychology, requires that a trained expert record verbal data, as the

student articulates thought processes while navigating the educational interface

(Ericcson and Simon 1993). Students were invited to participate in a one-on-one

session with the investigator at various times during the day; the same computer was

used for all the think-aloud exercises. The students provided verbal feedback about

aspects of the modules as they experienced each online content page and assessment

exercise. Students were asked to share their thought processes—from individual

words to broader concepts—particularly if they found something difficult to

understand or interpret. The results of these think-aloud protocols were commu-

nicated to the content authors to guide revisions. A second author trained in this

experimental technique reviewed the experimental process and assisted with

evaluation instrument design, data analysis, and data interpretation.

Ongoing Evaluation of the Initiative

The development of the ethics short course for international graduate students in

engineering was the main educational component of a combined educational and

research project (sponsored by the National Science Foundation—see Acknowl-

edgements). This article reports on the educational aspect of the project. The

research portion of the project—briefly summarized below—is still in progress and

will be reported separately. The initial findings reported below are a brief summary

of learner response, illustrating preliminary results of the ongoing project. The

summative pilot data demonstrates the initial success and sustainability of the

present project. More specific and complete information on instrument development

and validation, effectiveness of on-line delivery across educational contexts and

institutions, and achievement of learning outcomes, will be published with the

comprehensive results, and is beyond the scope of the current report.

The educational portion of the project initiated with the design and development

of the short course content, followed by the design and development of the web

interface. An initial development, design, and assessment phase was then carried

out. This included the above-mentioned think-aloud protocol with a small cohort of

graduate students, readability studies on the module contents, cognitive task

analyses with a pilot group, and usability studies on the website using another small

cohort of graduate students (N = 20). The international and domestic graduate


123

students for the usability study were recruited from Texas Tech University, which is

the home-site of the short course website, and the home institution for three of the

primary project researchers. The information garnered from this phase of the project

was then used to revise both the content and design of the website. Quantitative

results from the initial assessment are beyond the scope of this report, and will be

reported separately, as the goal of this paper is to describe and discuss the

educational aspects of the project.

After revisions, a second assessment phase was implemented for the purpose of

further formative assessment of the web interface, as well as the content. To develop

a broader population from which to gather data, graduate students (n = 84) were

enrolled from three universities: Texas Tech University (n = 36), University of

Texas at Austin (n = 38), and Baylor University (n = 10). In aggregate, fifty-one

were international students and thirty-three were domestic students. Selective results

are offered below in the form of student comments and estimates of student

perceptions of interface effectiveness and course usefulness. Note that students were

recruited by invitation to graduate engineering courses at each institution; students

completed the modules on their own time at a location of their choosing.

As a form of qualitative, formative evaluation, the project team carefully noted

initial student opinions of the short course (n = 64; survey was optional), collected

in the course evaluation surveys given to students after course completion. As the

following randomly selected excerpts suggest, responses were positive, indicating

that the course is well-written, and useful to them. This suggests that the content was

readable, and the web design did not introduce distracting sources of cognitive load.

Thus, the students comprehended the material, arguably a prerequisite for their

learning the material, and students found the interface intuitive.

• This is a very useful course especially for an international student to get used to

the practices and norms of the American work culture.

• This online course is an excellent learning opportunity for an engineering

student irrespective of the level and trade of the engineering study.

• I am an international graduate student in Electrical Engineering. It is a very great

course, especially for me, as an international student. I have to admit that ethics

in U.S. engineering is somewhat different from my home country. So learning

ethics in U.S. engineering is not only preparation for the job finding, but also a

kind of method to know U.S. culture. I admire many good aspects in U.S. ethics

for engineering.

• This course should be a requirement for any engineering student towards their

upper level courses and graduate studies. It packs ethics in the political and

industrial arenas into a small course load and relates them to each other fairly

well.

• I think this course is very helpful to most of us graduate research assistants. Our

daily work is strongly related with engineering ethics but yet we do not have a

systematic outlet for us to look for an education source. This course introduces

engineering ethics in much detail and I really appreciate the learning opportunity.

We felt that for the purposes associated with formative assessment, results would

be used to enhance individual content modules. To this end, we asked students to


123

rate the usefulness of individual modules. When both international and domestic

students were asked which module they found most useful, they most frequently

(41%) cited the Intellectual Property and Plagiarism module (see Fig. 2). The

second most cited module, by 17% of students, was Conflicts of Interest. The

module cited most often as being least useful was Fairness (25%), followed by

Honesty (15%). This suggests that those frequently cited have a high degree of

codification (i.e., explicit rules and requirements), while those less cited are

arguably the most abstract and least codified. The content development team

scrutinized the modules that were consistently marked as the least useful, in an

effort to improve the course content and delivery. The team is currently preparing a

secondary study to enhance the interactivity and multimedia aspects of the course,

in order to address some of the comments revealed in the student evaluations.

Ongoing Research on the Initiative

In addition to the formative assessment summarized above, research data were

collected from the students through a battery of pre- and post-test instruments.

These instruments include a measure of academic achievement orientation,

acculturation stress, education background (including specific questions about

previous ethics instruction), and language proficiency (see discussion above of

variables thought to moderate international student success). The objective of the

research effort, in brief, is to extract the variance in student performance on the

modules (dependent variable) due to academic achievement orientation, accultur-

ation stress, language proficiency, and a host of demographic variables, in order to

isolate the variance in performance due to the educational intervention. In essence,

the goal is to determine the effectiveness of the learning treatment, after removing

Fig. 2 Graduate student perceptions (preliminary data) of the eight instructional ethics modules


123

the mediating or moderating variables known to impact learner performance in this

context. Given that domestic students do not have the acculturation issues that

international graduate students face, the present research administers the modules to

domestic students as a control group. Following the preliminary testing, data will be

analyzed prior to a planned main data collection phase. Preliminary results suggest

that the short course is effective for both international and domestic students. The

educational intervention improved content mastery after accounting for prior

knowledge. Encouraged by the preliminary results, the authors will disseminate the

research results as part of the project closure.

Acknowledgements This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under NSF Award

No. 0629344, SES-Ethics and Values in Science, Engineering, and Technology.The authors thank Brent

Guinn, Monica Matzner, and Amy Pietan for their professional work in creating the online content

modules, project database, web interface, and related production tasks. The authors thank the many

graduate students who participated in the various studies necessary to review and refine the course

content, as well as the leadership at each institution.

References

Alberts, H. C., & Hazen, H. D. (2005). ‘‘There are always two voices’’: International students’ intentions to

stay in the United States or return to their home countries. International Migration, 43(3), 131–154.

Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Anderson, J. R. (2000). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York, NY: Freeman Publishing

Company.

Bashe, A., Anderson, S. K., Handelsman, M. M., & Klevansky, R. (2007). An acculturation model for

ethics training: The ethics autobiography and beyond. Professional Psychology: Research andPractice, 38(1), 60–67.

Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal ofIntercultural Relations, 29(6), 697–712.

Bird, S. J., & Sieber, J. E. (2005). Teaching ethics in science and engineering: Effective online education.

Science and Engineering Ethics, 11(3), 323–328.

Bradburn, E. M., Nevill, S., & Cataldi, E. F. (2006). Where are they now? A description of 1992–93

Bachelor’s Degree recipients 10 years later (NCES 2007-159). U.S. Department of Education.

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/

ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/29/e1/78.pdf. Accessed 8 July 2009.

Brumsen, M. (2005). Ethics in engineering in the Netherlands: The role of professional associations,

universities, and law. The International Journal of Engineering Education, 21(3), 391–401.

Council of Graduate Schools (CGS). (2009). Best practices in graduate education for the responsibleconduct of research. Washington, DC: CGS.

Crockett, L. J., Iturbide, M. I., Torres-Stone, R. A., McGinley, M., Raffaelli, M., & Carlo, G. (2007).

Acculturative stress, social support, and coping: Relations to psychological adjustment among Mexican–

American college students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13(4), 347–355.

Daniel, J. (1999). Computer-aided instruction on the world wide web: The third generation. Journal ofEconomic Education, Spring, 163–174.

Davis, M. (2009). Is engineering a profession everywhere? Philosophia, 37, 211–225.

Didier, C. (1999). Engineering ethics in France: A historical perspective. Technology in Society, 21(4),

471–486.

Didier, C. (2000). Engineering ethics at the Catholic University of Lille (France): Research and teaching

in a European context. European Journal of Engineering Education, 25(4), 325–335.

Downey, G. L., Lucena, J. C., & Mitcham, C. (2007). Engineering ethics and identity: Emerging

initiatives in comparative perspective. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(4), 463–487.

Duggan, A., Hess, B., Morgan, D., Kim, S., & Wilson, K. (2001). Measuring students’ attitudes toward

educational use of the Internet. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25, 267–281.


123

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/29/e1/78.pdf

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/29/e1/78.pdf

Ericcson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal report as data [revised edition].

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Federal Register. (2009). National Science Foundation: Responsible conduct of research. FederalRegister, 74(37), 8818–8819.

Finn, M. G. (2007). Stay rates of foreign doctorate recipients from U.S. universities 2005. Oak Ridge,

TN: Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education.

Goldston, D. B., Molock, S. D., Whitbeck, L. B., Murakami, J. L., Zayas, L. H., & Hall, G. C. N. (2008).

Cultural considerations in adolescent suicide prevention and psychosocial treatment. AmericanPsychologist, 63(1), 14–31.

Gorman, M., Hertz, M., Louis, G., Magpili, L., Mauss, M., Mehalik, M., et al. (2000). Integrating ethics &

engineering: A graduate option in systems engineering, ethics, and technology studies. Journal ofEngineering Education, 89(4), 461–469.

Gorsuch, G. J. (2003). The educational cultures of international teaching assistants and U.S. universities.

Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 7, 1–29.

Hamilton, J. (2000). The engineering profession. http://wwww.engc.org.uk/documents/Hamilton.pdf.

Accessed 24 August 2009.

Hart, H., & Moore, C. (2007). Developing curriculum in research ethics for engineers: Gathering the data.

In 2007 ASEE annual conference and exposition, conference proceedings.

Haws, D. R. (2001). Ethics instruction in engineering education: A (Mini) meta-analysis. Journal ofEngineering Education, 90(2), 223–229.

Herkert, J. R. (2000). Engineering ethics education in the USA: Content, pedagogy and curriculum.

European Journal of Engineering Education, 25(4), 303–313.

Herkert, J. R. (2002). Continuing and emerging issues in engineering ethics education. The Bridge, 32(3),

8–13.

Hillman, D., Willis, D., & Gunawardena, C. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education:

An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. American Journal of DistanceEducation, 8, 30–42.

Hoffer, T. B., Hess, M., Welch, Jr., V., & Williams, K. (2007). Doctorate recipients from United States

Universities: Summary report 2006. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center.

Hoole, S. R. H., & Hoole, D. (2005). Asian values and the human rights basis of professional ethics. TheInternational Journal of Engineering Education, 21(3), 402–414.

Hovey, J. D., Kim, S. E., & Seligman, L. D. (2006). The influences of cultural values, ethnic identity, and

language use on the mental health of Korean American college students. The Journal of Psychology:Interdisciplinary and Applied, 140(5), 499–511.

Hubbard, L. (2000). Technology-based math curriculums. The Journal, 28(3), 80–84.

Huntley, H. S. (1993). Adult international students: Problems of adjustment. Report No. HE 026 329,

ERIC document reproduction service No. ED 355 886.

Iino, H. (2005). Introductory and engineering ethics education for engineering students in Japan. TheInternational Journal of Engineering Education, 21(3), 378–383.

Iseda, T. (2008). How should we foster the professional integrity of engineers in Japan? Science andEngineering Ethics, 14, 165–176.

Jiali, Y. (2005). Acculturative stress and use of the Internet among East Asian international students in the

United States. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 8, 154–161.

Johnston, S., McGregor, H., & Taylor, E. (2000). Practice-focused ethics in Australian engineering

education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 25(4), 315–324.

Kalichman, M. (2005). Use and abuse of the Internet for teaching research ethics. Science andEngineering Ethics, 11(3), 341–345.

Lawson, W. D. (2004). Professionalism: The golden years. American Society of Civil Engineers. Journalof Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 130(1), 26–36.

Lucena, J., Mitcham, C., Leydens, J., Munakata-Marr, J., Straker, J., & Simoes, M. (2007). Theory and

practice of humanitarian ethics in graduate engineering education. In 2007 ASEE annual conferenceand exposition, conference proceedings.

Luegenbiehl, H. C. (2003a). Themes for an international code of engineering ethics. In Proceedings of the2003 ASEE/WFEO international colloquium. http://www.asee.org/conferences/international/2003

highlights.cfm. Accessed 17 January 2008.

Luegenbiehl, H. C. (2003b). Teaching engineering ethics across national borders. In 2003 ASEE annualconference and exposition, conference proceedings.


123

http://wwww.engc.org.uk/documents/Hamilton.pdf

http://www.asee.org/conferences/international/2003highlights.cfm

http://www.asee.org/conferences/international/2003highlights.cfm

Luegenbiehl, H. C. (2004). Ethical autonomy and engineering in a cross-cultural context. Techne, 8(1),

57–78.

Lynch, W. T. (1997). Teaching engineering ethics in the United States. Technology and SocietyMagazine, 16(4), 27–36.

Maki, R. H., Maki, W. S., Patterson, M., & Whittaker, P. D. (2000). Evaluation of a web-based

introductory psychology course: Learning and satisfaction in on-line versus lecture courses.

Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 32, 230–239.

National Academy of Engineering (NAE). (2005). Educating the engineer of 2020: Adapting engineeringeducation to the New Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Academy of Engineering (NAE). (2008). Ethics education and scientific and engineering

research: What’s been learned? What should be done? Summary of a workshop at the National

Academies Keck Center, August 25–26, 2008, http://www.nae.edu/cms/7087/CEES/14646.aspx.

Accessed 19 June 2009.

National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). (2003, March). Report of theengineering licensure qualifications task force. NCEES, Clemson, SC. http://www.ncees.org/

introduction/about_ncees/2003_elqtf_report.pdf. Accessed 8 July 2009.

National Science Foundation (NSF). (1995). Restructuring engineering education: A focus on change.

NSF 95-65.

National Science Foundation (NSF). (2008a). Ethics Education in Science and Engineering (EESE).

Program solicitation 08-530. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2008/nsf08530/nsf08530.pdf. Accessed 8

July 2009.

National Science Foundation (NSF). (2008b). Graduate students and postdoctorates in science and

engineering: Fall 2006 detailed statistical tables. NSF 08-306.

Navarro, P., & Shoemaker, J. (1999). Economics in cyberspace: A comparison study (33 pp). University

of California, Irvine: Graduate School of Management.

Newberry, B. (2004). The dilemma of ethics in engineering education. Science and Engineering Ethics,10(2), 343–351.

Poyrazli, S., Kavanaugh, P. R., Baker, A., & Al-Timimi, N. (2004). Social support and demographic

correlates of acculturative stress in international students. Journal of College Counseling, 7(1), 73–82.

Rahman, O., & Rollock, D. (2004). Acculturation, competence, and mental health among South Asian

students in the United States. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 32(3), 130–142.

Riley, K., Davis, M., Jackson, A. C., & Maciukenas, J. (2009). ‘‘Ethics in the details’’: Communicating

engineering ethics via micro-insertion. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 52(1),

95–108.

Schonfeld, T. L. (2005). Reflections on teaching healthcare ethics on the web. Science and EngineeringEthics, 11(3), 481–494.

Schrag, B. (2005). Teaching research ethics: Can web-based instruction satisfy appropriate pedagogical

objectives? Science and Engineering Ethics, 11(3), 347–366.

Shuman, L. J., Besterfield, M., & McGourty, J. (2005). The ABET ‘‘Professional skills’’—Can they be

taught? Can they be assessed? Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 41–45.

Sieber, J. E. (2005). Misconceptions and realities about teaching online. Science and Engineering Ethics,11(3), 329–340.

Smith, J. H., & Barrington, P. A. (1997). Conduct and ethics in engineering practice related to the North

American free trade agreement. Final Report to the National Science Foundation, NSF Grant

Number SBR-941-3323, Murdough Center for Engineering Professionalism, Texas Tech University,

http://www.niee.org/Nafta_Report.htm. Accessed 23 June 2009.

Spack, R. (1997). The acquisition of academic literacy in a second language. Written Communication,14(1), 3–62.

Stephan, K. D. (1999). A survey of ethics-related instruction in U.S. engineering programs. Journal ofEngineering Education, 88(4), 459–464.

Sugihara, K. (2002). How to start engineering ethics education in Japan. In Proceedings of theinternational conference on engineering education.

Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. L., Cooper, S., Ahern, T., Shaw, S. M., et al. (2006).

Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76, 93–135.

Tomlinson-Clark, S. (2001). Education and identity within a psychological and sociocultural context. In

N. K. Shimahara, I. Z. Holowinsky, & S. Tomlinson-Clark (Eds.), Ethnicity, race, and nationality ineducation: A global perspective. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.


123

http://www.nae.edu/cms/7087/CEES/14646.aspx

http://www.ncees.org/introduction/about_ncees/2003_elqtf_report.pdf

http://www.ncees.org/introduction/about_ncees/2003_elqtf_report.pdf

http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2008/nsf08530/nsf08530.pdf

http://www.niee.org/Nafta_Report.htm

Walker, R. L. (2007). Acculturation and acculturative stress as indictors for suicide risk among African

Americans. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77(3), 386–391.

Weil, V. (1984). The rise of engineering ethics. Technology in Society, 6(4), 341–345.

Wilton, L., & Constantine, M. G. (2003). Length of residence, cultural adjustment difficulties, and

psychological distress symptoms in Asian and Latin American international college students.

Journal of College Counseling, 6(2), 177–186.

Yoon, E., & Portman, T. A. A. (2004). Critical issues of literature on counseling international students.

Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 32(1), 33–44.


123

Documents

Acclimating International Graduate Students to Professional Engineering Ethics