First-Year Engineering Students’ Experiences with a Course of Ethics and History of Technology

Abstract

Previous analyses of an 11-week course on ethics and history of technology, taught to 2000+ first-year engineering students showed low motivation for and satisfaction with this course of students in Informatics and Applied Mathematics (INF/AM) and in BioMedical Technology (BMT). In our inquiry, we started from the following research questions: "Which aspects of the USE Basic course do students of INF/AM and BMT consider interesting and challenging? What are the differences in the 2018 version in students' deep learning and motivation with the course compared to 2017 after the implemented changes?" We combined three fields for the background of our research: deep learning, learning environment and self-determination theory. We used a mixed-method approach focusing on the two target groups INF/AM and BMT. We performed qualitative focus group discussion, a test run before the course and observations. Validated quantitative questionnaires on deep learning, learning environment and motivation were electronically taken. T-tests were used to compare results with the previous year. Qualitative results showed that BMT students consider themselves as mere cogwheels and not responsible and that many words in their courses (as 'project', 'feedback' …) mean completely different things in the courses of the own department. Students of INF and TW showed a different profile. TW students were quite aware of what was happening in the world at the moment, INF were far less. Both wanted clarity (even 'baby-steps' in their own words), but INF students needed much more linearity, for example in study guides and explanations of assignments. INF students in our sample acknowledged to have difficulties reading things. The quantitative results of the differences between the 2017 and 2018 for the history and the ethics part for the INF/TW and the BMT showed a mix pattern and will be discussed. The conclusions indicated that the apparent disinterest of INF/TW and BMT students goes far deeper than a uselessness of ethics and history for first-year engineers. It pointed at their way of looking at reality and at their own professional identity. It pointed at the difficulties of general courses to offer educational methods that were interpreted differently from student groups of different departments. And it pointed at differences at basic competences needed to dive into deep learning and to be motivated by what is offered by the course. Solutions are discussed.

Motivational dynamics in basic needs profiles: Toward a person‐centered motivation approach in engineering education

“…We simplified the course as we excluded history and kept ethics as a discipline (G. Bombaerts & Spahn, 2019), and as such, created more space and focused in the course. We offered weekly structured contact moments that allow for individual flexibility (G. J. T. Bombaerts et al, 2018). Oral feedback was organized in weekly coaching sessions (van Diggelen et al, 2019) to support students to give meaning to the process they went through.…”

“…We briefly indicate how we aimed for competence ( C ), autonomy ( A ), and relatedness ( R ) in this design. The relevant USE basic course was the first in a set of four nontechnical courses mandatory for all undergraduate students (Bekkers & Bombaerts, 2017; G. Bombaerts & Doulougeri, 2019). It concerned an 11‐week mandatory, first‐year course on the ethics and history of technology given at the end of the second semester.…”

“…Educators strive to optimize student motivation because motivation is key to learning (Baeten et al, 2010; G. J. T. Bombaerts et al, 2018), academic performance (Koh et al, 2010), persistence in engineering (Eris et al, 2010; French et al, 2005), and student and teacher well‐being (Sheldon & Krieger, 2007; Shen et al, 2015, respectively). The numerous differences that influence students' needs throughout a course make for a very complex set of variables, making it very difficult for teachers to tailor their courses to increase motivation.…”

How can you contribute to the social responsibility of your university’s education?

“…From the perspective of being recognized as important actors in the quintuple helix of innovation [5], (technical) university eco-system collaborations become increasingly co-creative, including complex interactions between political, economic, and education systems, natural environment and knowledge creation [6]. The technical universities' education also becomes increasingly intertwined with the eco-system partners, resulting in adapting curricula [7] and new and flexible [8] formats for ethics courses [9] such as research-based, community-based or challenge-based learning.…”