Value-sensitive engineering education: building teacher capacity to foster responsibility via CBL

The teaching of engineering is not a neutral endeavour (Martin et al, 2021). It conveys a vision as to what are the values of the profession and the responsibilities that students have as future engineers (Riley, 2008). This is more so the case with Challenge Based Learning, a pedagogy that exposes students to real-life problems and brings students in contact with educational partners and communities. Values and responsibilities are inherently part of CBL and more explicitly or tacitly conveyed to students. Historically, engineering education has been conceptualised and institutionalised within a context associated with a technico-scientific culture (Godfrey, 2009; Cech, 2014). This has affected the focus and understanding of engineering education and the way in which engineering ethics is taught (Hess & Fore, 2018). This workshop seeks to frame engineering education as a socio-technical and value-sensitive endeavour. It aims to build teacher capacity for incorporating a broad range of values and responsibility via Challenge Based Learning. The workshop is structured as follows: In the first part, the workshop introduces the audience to two instruments developed by the facilitators for integrating values and responsibility in engineering education (Blind reference), interspersed with practical examples of how these are integrated in CBL activities offered by University College London (20 min). This is followed by an activating part in which participants work in groups to apply the instruments presented in the context of their own teaching to devise learning components such as learning goals or learning activities (20 min). In the last part of the workshop, the outputs are discussed in the plenary . At the end of the session, the participants will have: (i)an enhanced understanding of a broad range of engineering responsibilities and values (ii)knowledge of how these responsibilities and values can be fostered via targeted educational activities or articulated in learning outcomes (iii)two instruments they can further use when designing a CBL course to facilitate the integration of engineering values and responsibilities The workshop can aid course designers and teachers to articulate and embed responsibilities and values in CBL. References Cech E. A. (2014). Culture of disengagement in engineering education? Science, Technology and Human Values, 39(1), 42–72. Godfrey, E. (2009). Exploring the culture of engineering education: The journey. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 15(1), 1-12. Hess, J. L., & Fore, G. A. (2018). A systematic literature review of US engineering ethics interventions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(2), 551-583. Martin, D. A., Conlon, E., Bowe, B. (2021). A multi-level Review of Engineering Ethics Education: Towards a Socio-technical Orientation of Engineering Education for Ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 27, 60. Riley, D. (2008). Engineering and social justice. Synthesis Lectures on Engineers, Technology and Society. San Rafael, CA: Morgan and Claypool Publishers.