Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

ABET Criterion 3.f: How Much Curriculum Content is Enough?

  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Even after multiple cycles of ABET accreditation, many engineering programs are unsure of how much curriculum content is needed to meet the requirements of ABET’s Criterion 3.f (an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility). This study represents the first scholarly attempt to assess the impact of curriculum reform following the introduction of ABET Criterion 3.f. This study sought to determine how much professional and ethical responsibility curriculum content was used between 1995 and 2005, as well as how, when, why, and to what effect changes in the amount of content occurred. Subsequently, the study sought to evaluate if different amounts of curriculum content generated differing student outcomes. The amount of curriculum content used by each of the participating programs was identified during semi-structured interviews with program administrators and a review of ABET Self-Study documents. Quantitative methods were applied to determine if a relationship existed between the curriculum content and performance on a nationally administered, engineering-specific standardized examination. The findings indicate a statistical relationship, but a lack of structure between the amount of required content in the curriculum and performance on the examination. Additional findings were also generated regarding the way that programs interpret the Criterion 3.f feedback generated during accreditation visits. The primary impact of this study is that it dispels the myth that more courses or course time on professionalism and ethics will necessarily lead to positive engineering education outcomes. Much of the impetus to add more curriculum content results from a lack of conclusive feedback during ABET accreditation visits.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ABET. (2000). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs. Baltimore: ABET, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • ABET. (2006). Accreditation policy and procedure manual. Baltimore: ABET, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • ABET. (2008). 2007 abet annual report. Baltimore: ABET.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Educational Research Association., American Psychological Association., National Council on Measurement in Education., & Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (U.S.). (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Society for Engineering Education (2009). Degrees awarded and enrollment reports.

  • American Society of Civil Engineers Body of Knowledge Committee. (2008). Civil engineering body of knowledge for the 21st century: Preparing the civil engineer for the future (2nd ed.). Reston, Va: American Society of Civil Engineers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Razavieh, A., & Sorensen, C. (2006). Introduction for research in education (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry, B. E. (2009). Methods of incorporating understanding of professional and ethical responsibility in the engineering curriculum and results from the fundamentals of engineering examination. West Lafayette: Purdue University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum, R. J. (1980). Ethics and engineering curricula (The teaching of ethics; 7). Hastings-on-Hudson, N.Y.: The Hastings Center, Institute of Society, Ethics, and the Life Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besterfield-Sacre, M., Shuman, L. J., Wolfe, H., Atman, C. J., McGourty, J., Miller, R. L., et al. (2000). Defining the outcomes: A framework for ec-2000. IEEE Transactions on Education, 43(2), 100–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1991). Applying the seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education (New directions for teaching and learning, no. 47). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, R., Dyas, L., Maddux, C. D., & Kochman, A. (2001). Principled moral reasoning and behavior of preservice teacher education students. American Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 143–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devore, J. L. (2004). Probability and statistics for engineering and the sciences (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson-Brooks/Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drake, M. J., Griffin, P. M., Kirkman, R., & Swann, J. L. (2005). Engineering ethical curricula: Assessment and comparison of two approaches. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(2), 223–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engineering and Land Surveying Examination Services (2007). Georgia exam registration. http://www.els-examreg.org/georgia.php. Accessed Dec 4 2007.

  • Florida Board of Professional Engineers (2007). Fundamentals of engineering application. http://www.fbpe.org/applications/feapps/fundamentals%20of%20engineering%20examination%20application%20printable%20fbpe%20fe%20iaapp%20001%200907.doc. Accessed Dec 4 2007.

  • Hastings Center. (1980). The teaching of ethics in higher education: A report (The teaching of ethics; 1). Hastings-on-Hudson, N.Y: Hastings Center, Institute for Society, Ethics, and the Life Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herkert, J. R. (2000). Engineering education in the USA: Content, pedagogy and curriculum. European Journal of Engineering Education, 25(4), 303–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herkert, J. R. (2002). Continuing and emerging issues in engineering ethics education. The Bridge, 32(3), 15–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrey, C. (1993). Ethical development of accounting students, non-accounting business students, and liberal arts students. Issues in Accounting Education, 8(1), 86–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on moral development (1st ed.). San Francisco: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, A. D., Terenzini, P. T., & Lattuca, L. R. (2007). More than meets the eye: Curricular and programmatic effects on student learning. Research in Higher Education, 48(2), 141–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lattuca, L. R., Terenzini, P. T., & Volkwein, J. F. (2006). Engineering change: A study of the impact of EC2000. Published by ABET, Inc., Baltimore, MD. http://www.abet.org/paper.shtml.

  • Lawson, W. D. (2007). Reliability and validity of fe exam scores for assessment of individual competence, program accreditation, and college performance. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 133(4), 320–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeFevre, W. (1997). Using the ncees fe to assess instruction. In Best Assessment Processes in Engineering Education. Terre Haute, Indiana: ABET.

  • LeFevre, W., Steadman, J. W., Tietjen, J. S., White, K. R., & Whitman, D. L. (2005). Using the fundamentals of engineering (fe) examination to assess academic programs (p. 18). Clemson: National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeel, S. P. (1994). College teaching and student moral development. In J. R. Rest & D. Narvâaez (Eds.), Moral development in the professions: Psychology and applied ethics (pp. 27–49). Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Engineering. (2004a). Emerging technologies and ethical issues in engineering: Papers from a workshop, October 14–15, 2003. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Engineering. (2004b). The engineer of 2020: Visions of engineering in the new century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (2007a). Exam scoring—method. http://www.ncees.org/exams/scoring/scoring_method.php. Accessed Nov, 24 2007.

  • National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (2007b). Fundamentals exams. http://www.ncees.org/exams/fundamentals/#format. Accessed Dec 4 2007.

  • National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (2008a). Exam development procedures manual: Exam development, scoring, and general procedures (p. 72). NCEES.

  • National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (2008b). Security and administrative procedures manual (p. 41). NCEES.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nirmalakhandan, N., Daniel, D., & White, K. (2004). Use of subject-specific fe exam results in outcomes assessment. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(1), 73–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • North Carolina Board of Examiners for Engineers & Surveyors (2007). Student application for certification as engineering intern. http://www.ncbels.org/forms/student.pdf. Accessed Dec 4 2007.

  • Olkin, I., Gleser, L. J., & Derman, C. (1980). Probability models and applications. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfatteicher, S. K. A. (2001). Teaching vs. Preaching: Ec2000 and the engineering ethics dilemma. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(1), 137–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabins, M. (1998). Teaching engineering ethics to undergraduates: Why? What? How? Science and Engineering Ethics, 4(3), 291–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, B., & Caplan, A. L. (1980). Ethics in the undergraduate curriculum (The teaching of ethics; 9). New York: The Hastings Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard, S., Macatangay, K., Colby, A., & Sullivan, W. M. (2009). Educating engineers: Designing for the future of the field (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • South Carolina Board of Examiners for Engineers & Surveyors (2007). Qualifications for admittance to the fe examination and certification as an engineer-in-training. http://www.llr.state.sc.us/pol/engineers/pdf_files/eit%20minimum%20qualifications.pdf. Accessed Dec 4 2007.

  • Strauss, L. C., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). Assessing student performance on ec2000 criterion 3.A-k. In 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Conference & Exposition, Portland, Oregon. ASEE.

  • Terenzini, P. T., Lattuca, L. R., Ohland, M. W., & Long, R. A. (2008). Apples and oranges? A design to examine the correspondence between two measures of engineering learning. In 2008 American Society for Engineering Education Conference & Exposition, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. ASEE.

  • Virginia Department of Professional and Occupational Regulations (2007). Engineer in training designation application. http://www.dpor.virginia.gov/dporweb/forms/eng/0420des.pdf. Accessed Dec 4 2007.

  • Vogt, C. M. (2008). Faculty as a critical juncture in student retention and performance in engineering programs. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 27–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wicker, R. B., Quintana, R., & Tarquin, A. (1999). Evaluation model using fundamentals of engineering examination. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 125(2), 47–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Younger, M. S. (1979). Handbook for linear regression. North Scituate, Mass: Duxbury Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The MIDFIELD program is supported by the National Science Foundation Grant No. REC-0337629 (now DRL-0729596) and EEC-0646441. Dr. Barry’s doctoral program was funded by Purdue University through the Frederick N. Andrews Fellowship and the Bilsland Dissertation Fellowship. The authors gratefully acknowledge the time and resources supplied by representatives of NCEES, particularly Davy McDowell, as well as various administrators and program representatives at the MIDFIELD academic institutions in providing access to various forms of data. The authors would like to express sincere appreciation for the guidance and review provided by Drs. Ruth A. Streveler, Karl A. Smith, and Vincent P. Drnevich, P.E., as well as the assistance provided by Dr. Richard A. Layton, Russell A. Long and Richard G. Martin.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, United States Military Academy, Bldg. 752 Mahan Hall, West Point, NY, 10996, USA

    B. E. Barry

  2. School of Engineering Education, Purdue University, 701 West Stadium Avenue, Neil Armstrong Hall of Engineering, West Lafayette, IN, 47907-2045, USA

    M. W. Ohland

Authors
  1. B. E. Barry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. W. Ohland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. E. Barry.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Barry, B.E., Ohland, M.W. ABET Criterion 3.f: How Much Curriculum Content is Enough?. Sci Eng Ethics 18, 369–392 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9255-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9255-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation