AC 2011-1362: SUSTAINABILITY ETHICS AMONG FIRST-YEAR CIVILAND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING STUDENTS

Angela R Bielefeldt, University of Colorado, Boulder

Angela Bielefeldt, PhD, PE, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Civil, Environmental, & Ar-chitectural Engineering at the University of Colorado at Boulder (CU). She has been teaching engineeringethics as part of the first-year course for civil engineering students since 1997 and for environmentalengineering students since 2006. She has served as the Chair of the ASEE Environmental EngineeringDivision. Her research interests in engineering education include service learning, sustainability, andwomen in engineering.

c©American Society for Engineering Education, 2011

Sustainability Ethics among First-Year Civil and Environmental

Engineering Students

Abstract

This research assessed student attitudes about ethics and sustainability during first-year courses

for civil engineering and environmental engineering. In both courses, the second learning

module in 2009 and 2010 taught the students about sustainability and the fourth learning module

focused on ethics. The student homework assignments throughout the semester were used to

gauge student attitudes, awareness, and knowledge about sustainability and ethics, and more

specifically the ethical imperative for sustainability. In addition, it was of interest to evaluate if

students in the environmental engineering course had a greater “sustainability ethic” compared to

their peers in the civil engineering course. On the initial “defining the discipline” assignment, an

increasing percentage over time of the civil engineering students included sustainability in their

discussions, 17% to 31% from 2008 to 2010. In comparison, 35-37% of the environmental

engineering students included sustainability. In 2009 and 2010 the second course module on

sustainability did not increase the percentage of students who discussed sustainability as part of

the fourth homework assignment on ethics; the percentage of the ethics essays that included the

term sustainable and/or sustainability were 29-47% among civil engineering students and 26-

29% of the environmental engineering students. In the special topic papers written by the civil

engineering students for Homework 6, significantly more students discussed sustainability in

relation to their topic in the semesters that the course included a sustainability module (21-24%

vs. previous 5%). In the final reflective essays at the end of the semester (homework 7), 60-86%

of the students mentioned ethics; there were not specific trends over time or differences between

the civil and environmental engineering courses. The semesters with the sustainability module

significantly increased the discussion of sustainability by the students: 5% civil engineers before

the module vs. 52 and 76% after the module; 35-37% of environmental engineers before the

module vs. 77-79% after the module. About 40% of the students incorporated sustainability into

their definition of civil or environmental engineering; this seems to indicate that the students had

integrated sustainability into their identity of these engineering disciplines. Based on statements

within the final essays, more of the environmental engineering students seemed to recognize

sustainability as an ethical imperative than the civil engineers. The results indicate that a 1-credit

course can positively impact students‟ attitudes and awareness toward developing a sustainability

ethic.

Background

Sustainability has been recognized as an imperative by the engineering community,21

with

specific inclusion as an independent knowledge domain in both the Civil Engineering Body of

Knowledge (BOK2) 6

and Environmental Engineering Body of Knowledge1. Sustainability has

also been characterized as a macroethical issue.5,14

For example, the original 1914 code of ethics

from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) was revised in 1963 to include

responsibility to the general public, revised in 1977 to include a responsibility for environmental

protection, and revised in 1997 to include a responsibility for sustainable development.26

The

National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) Code of Ethics for Engineers states that

engineers are “encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development in order to

protect the environment for future generations” (NSPE III.2.D).22

A similar statement regarding

sustainability is included in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) code of

ethics.10

In contrast, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and American

Institute of Chemical Engineers (AICHE) codes of ethics only include a responsibility for

environmental protection.15,3

In all cases the statements regarding environmental protection and

sustainable development in the codes of ethics indicate that these issues are encouraged rather

than required.26

However, the inclusion of sustainability as a required knowledge domain for

professional licensure in civil engineering6 and supporting policy statements indicate the

commitment of the profession to this goal.7,8,9

For example, ASCE states: “[ASCE] recognizes

the leadership role of engineers in sustainable development, and their responsibility to provide

quality and innovation in addressing the challenges of sustainability.”8 Regardless, it can be

argued that ethical engineering requires an understanding of sustainability and its application.

However, it is unclear the extent to which our students understand sustainability or perceive that

it is an ethical requirement. Sustainability has rapidly become a buzz-word in society, but

appears to be widely used without a real understanding of its full meaning. Some individuals

appear to use sustainability interchangeably with environment. But true sustainable engineering

requires simultaneously balancing environmental, economic, and social concerns. Sustainable

engineering also requires a long-term perspective. Therefore, a distinction between

environmental ethics and sustainability ethics should be made. For example, Rowden and

Striebig24

developed a three-hour module on personal computer design to focus on

environmental ethics which could be incorporated into a principles of design or engineering

economics course. The module included economic and environmental impacts but lacked a

social dimension. Recent publications provide elaborate definitions and discussion of

environmental ethics.12,17

A sustainability ethic can embrace more traditional engineering ethics

(which include social and economic dimensions) and elements of environmental ethics.

There is evidence that sustainability concepts have been integrated into engineering curricula,

with some inclusion of ethical dimensions.4 For example, a recent survey of the administrative

heads of engineering departments found that over 80% were teaching sustainable engineering

focused courses or had integrated sustainable engineering concepts into existing courses.4 The

study included a category of “history, ethics, and/or philosophy” and found that 18 of 249 (7%)

of the books used in the courses fit this category, plus 6 of 213 (3%) of the readings.4 In 28% of

the books and readings, history, ethics, and/or philosophy was a dominant theme, if addressed.4

Of 44 sustainable engineering focused centers and institutes, none had humanities (history,

ethics, and/or philosophy) as a primary focus, but three were rated as including it as a significant

aspect.4 There are some good examples of the linkage between sustainability and ethics in

engineering education. Veeraghanta and Frost25

described teaching first year students at the

University of Utah about sustainability in their Ethics in Engineering course. Student teams

completed a “sustainability in your engineering discipline” assignment, which required both an

oral presentation and a written report. The instructors noted that: “Embedding sustainability in

engineering ethics promotes a higher level of learning for freshmen engineering students which

is evidenced by the quality of their final oral presentations and written reports.” 25

Despite these encouraging findings, engineering still has room to improve sustainability

education. For example, engineering was poorly represented at the recent 2010 Association for

the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) conference

(http://conf2010.aashe.org/); of the approximately 500 conference papers a word search for the

term “engineer” in the conference program only identified five paper titles and six author

affiliations. Further, publications on sustainability ethics in engineering are fairly sparse; a

search using the ISI Web of Knowledge database identified only 21 articles that included all

three topic search terms (sustainability, ethics, and engineering). Within the journal Science and

Engineering Ethics, only eight articles included the search term sustainability.

The primary goal of this study was to explore the attitudes of first year engineering students

toward sustainability ethics. I have taught first year civil engineering students since 1997 and

first year environmental engineering students since 2006. Over these many years, I have become

concerned about the identity of an engineer that students are building. I believe that it is

important that students build ethics and sustainability into their sense of identity for engineers.

Loui18

studied the how students conceived of ethics as an essential characteristic of engineers,

and found at the end of an ethics course that this had sometimes grown into a sense of

stewardship for society. Some students who possess a balanced interest in technical and social

issues feel that engineering is too restrictive and technical rather than allowing them to embrace

a diversity of interests and perspectives. Discord between students personal values and perceived

values of the profession may lead to decreased motivation and/or performance. This is somewhat

similar to the idea of “fit disconnect” or dissonance with the values they personally hold and

those they perceive for the profession.27

For example, a short personal values affirmation

exercise in a first-year calculus-based physics course reduced the achievement gap between men

and women in the course, and elevated women‟s modal grade from a C to a B.20

In the first year

courses for civil and environmental engineering at the University of Colorado (CU) the

respective BOK6,1

is presented to students in order to show that a diversity of knowledge, skills,

and values are important, in the hopes that students will find some parts of the profession with

which they can personally identify.

A secondary goal of this research was to determine if there were significant differences in the

attitudes toward sustainability of the first year students in the civil engineering course versus the

environmental engineering course. My hypothesis was that a higher percentage of the students

in the first year environmental engineering course embraced a sustainability ethic compared to

students in the first year civil engineering course. However, distinguishing a sustainability ethic

from an environmental / land ethic proved somewhat challenging. I have anecdotally found that

a majority of the civil engineering students in the first-year course want to “build big”. Some

have expressed surprise and/or dismay that they must consider ethical and social issues in their

designs, and would prefer to be unencumbered by such issues. In contrast, many of the students

enrolled in the environmental engineering course pictured themselves as ecowarriors… and were

surprised that human and public safety were key concerns, equal to that of environmental

protection. Some students in the environmental engineering course were also disappointed that it

was too much engineering – and not enough natural systems and protecting the environment.

Many had taken an environmental science course in high school, and expected a similar focus in

environmental engineering. They were therefore surprised to learn that environmental engineers

design infrastructure for civilization such as drinking water treatment, air pollution control

equipment for factories, etc. Similar percentages of both civil and environmental engineering

students seemed disappointed that economics were a constraint on their creativity. Many of the

environmental engineering students were disappointed that they are not allowed to build what is

best for the environment at any cost. Thus, students in both courses needed to realize the

importance of balancing social, economic, and environmental issues in their engineering designs.

Objectives

Both sustainability and ethics were key learning objectives in first year courses for civil

engineering (CVEN) and environmental engineering (EVEN) at the University of Colorado at

Boulder (CU) in 2009 and 2010. The objective of this research was to gauge the interest,

knowledge, and attitudes of students toward sustainability (sustainable engineering) and

professional ethics. It was of particular interest to determine if the addition of the sustainability

module changed these attitudes as compared to the data from 2007 and 2008 when the course

included an ethics module but not a sustainability module. Potential differences between the

students enrolled in the CVEN versus EVEN courses were also of interest. Surveys and content

analysis of homework assignments were used to evaluate these elements.

Research Methods

Two courses targeted to first year engineering students majoring in civil engineering (CVEN)

and environmental engineering (EVEN) formed the basis for this study. These were one-credit

courses required as an introduction to the major for incoming first year students. Four years of

data were utilized: 2007 (EVEN only) and 2008 (baseline years that included an ethics module

but not a sustainability module), and 2009 and 2010 (years when the courses contained both a

sustainability module and an ethics module). The number and demographic profile of the

students initially enrolled in the courses are summarized in Table 1. Students who were not first

year were either classified as sophomores by the university due to AP credits but were in fact in

their first semester at CU, were transfer students into the major, or were enrolled in other

disciplines and considering changing their major. Students who were not declared as either

CVEN or EVEN majors were largely open option engineering students enrolled in the College of

Engineering without having yet selected a major. Some were also students in the College of Arts

and Sciences considering transferring into engineering. Note that some students dropped the

courses partway through the semester while others simply did not turn in some homework

assignments; therefore, the number of homework assignments available for analysis varied with

each assignment per semester.

Table 1. Demographics of students in the first year CVEN and EVEN courses

Course Year #

students

%

female

%

URM

% first

year

% CVEN

majors

% EVEN

majors

1st year

CVEN

2008 56 18 6 86 79 0

2009 78 17 13 65 53 0

2010 59 14 5 68 66 2

1st year

EVEN

2007 46 33 4 75 2 54

2008 60 52 5 76 2 62

2009 78 44 5 65 1 60

2010 80 46 11 64 1 63

URM = Hispanic, black, Native American, multi-racial

The course structures of the CVEN and EVEN courses were similar and taught by the same

instructor in all of the years for which data were analyzed. The typical course assignments and

order of presentation to the students in 2009 and 2010 are shown in Table 2. Prior to 2009 there

was not an explicit module on sustainability in either class. Some of the course assignments

were designed to reinforce the sustainability topic. For example, in the CVEN course in 2009

and 2010 on the team bridge assignment, the quality of the bridges were judged using weighted

criteria that covered the three pillars of sustainability: environmental 22-25%, economic 42%,

and social (including aesthetics) 13-17%. The deflection of the bridge was also evaluated as a

technical criterion at 17%-23%. The students were required to discuss the environmental and

societal aspects, since these were not empirically determined by the West Point Bridge Designer

software. In 2008, the bridge judging criteria were only economic (cost) 46%, aesthetics 15%,

and deflection 39%. For the EVEN course the biofuels life cycle assessment (LCA) reinforced

the sustainability concepts to some extent. However, students were allowed to select their own

impact categories for the LCA and some selected entirely environmental and human health

impacts, and lacked economic factors. The EVEN team project involved an exploration of solid

waste generation, recycling, and disposal via landfilling or incineration in 2007-2009; in 2010

the students conducted an LCA comparing a biofuel to fossil fuel (gasoline or diesel).

Table 2. Course assignments in 2009 and 2010

Module CVEN EVEN

Topic # lectures % grade Topic # lectures % grade

1 Overview 1 6 Overview 1 6

2 Sustainability 2 12 Sustainability 2 12

3 Team bridge

project 3 24

Biofuel life cycle

assessment (LCA) 1 16

4 Ethics 2 20 Ethics 2 20

5 Curriculum 1 10 Curriculum 1 12

6 Event or Project

Paper 2 16 Team project 3 22

7 Profession and

Reflection

4 (guest

speakers) 12

Profession and

Reflection

5 (guest

speakers) 12

The students‟ homework assignments provided direct evidence of student knowledge and

attitudes, depending on the questions asked. Content analyses were conducted on these

assignments. Electronic copies of the student assignments were analyzed using the word search

function in Windows Explorer to determine the presence/absence of various terms within the

individual student papers. All of the word searches were based on the word root to find closely

related terms; for example „sustainab‟ to locate either sustainability and/or sustainable, „econom‟

to locate either economic and/or economy, etc. In some cases, more detailed examinations of the

homework assignments were conducted to determine number of times that a term was used in a

particular assignment and/or the context in which the term was used.

In addition to the homework assignments, students were offered some optional survey

instruments relevant to this study, including:

1) Sustainability questions either via a written survey or in-class clicker questions.11

2) A sustainability motivation survey based on self-efficacy, attainment value, intrinsic

motivation/interest, extrinsic motivation/utility, and attitude.19,28

Results

First Homework Assignment

The first homework assignment of the semester required students to demonstrate a basic

understanding of the engineering major by: defining the discipline, identifying major sub-

discipline areas, identifying important knowledge and skills (based on the ABET2 and BOK

1,6

criteria), and identifying a specific, current project related to the discipline and describing an

engineer‟s role on the project (with appropriate web citation). The assignment was due on the

second day of class in the semester. For the question about the five most important skills for

civil engineers, in 2010 40% of the 55 students included ethics in their top 5 (the 4th

highest

ranked item), compared to 24% sustainability (the 8th

highest ranked item); given the 24

outcomes in the BOK2 this is a strong showing for these two elements. For the five most

important skills for environmental engineers, 27% of the 79 students included ethics in their top

5 (the 8th

highest ranked item), compared to only 11% sustainability (the 14th

highest ranked

item); there are 18 outcomes mapped to 16 knowledge domains in the EVEN BOK. The higher

number of student references to sustainability by the CVEN students is somewhat surprising.

Only 1 CVEN and 2 EVEN students ranked both ethics and sustainability in their top 5; so

minimal correlation is evident although many students ranked either topic as critical elements for

both CVEN and EVEN.

More broadly, students may also have included the terms ethic(s/al) and/or sustainab(le/ility)

somewhere in the assignment, such as in the definition of the discipline, a typical project, etc.;

results are summarized in Table 3. The discussion of ethics decreased from 2007 to 2010, with

very similar amounts between the civil and environmental engineers. Some of the differences

may be due to small changes in the assignment itself or the lecture material. For example,

starting in 2009 the EVEN students were provided the Body of Knowledge; previously, students

were referred to ABET (where only the 11 A-K outcomes were readily apparent to students) and

employer surveys for the important skills data. The discussion of sustainability by the CVEN

students increased from 2008 to 2010; the frequency among EVEN students remained stable

from 2008 to 2010. By 2010 the CVEN students only slightly lagged their EVEN peers in their

discussion of sustainability. Some of the increases over time among the CVEN students could be

because they saw that sustainability was listed as the second lecture topic on the syllabus in 2009

and 2010.

Table 3. Percentage of homework 1 assignments that included the terms ethics or sustainability

ethics sustainability

Course 2007 2008 2009 2010 2007 2008 2009 2010

CVEN NA 79 65 36 NA 17 23 31

EVEN 93 79 65 32 17 35 37 37

Sustainability Module

The second topic of the semester was a sustainability module, which included two lectures and a

homework assignment. The lectures included Clicker questions (2010) or a pre-survey (2009)11

that gathered data regarding student attitudes about sustainability. Survey data that seems

relevant to the sustainability ethics topic of this paper are summarized in Table 4. The results in

Table 4 represent responses prior to any lecture content on sustainability.

Students were asked if sustainability was a key component of their engineering discipline

(CVEN for CVEN students; EVEN for EVEN students). In 2009, the EVEN students more

strongly agreed with the statement than the CVEN students. In 2010 the support for

sustainability increased among the CVEN students; the decrease among the EVEN students is

surprising and may reflect confusion on the use of the Clicker technology.

Table 4. Percentage of Student Responses in Each Category

Statement Course Year Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Agree Strongly

agree

Sustainability is a key component

of (CVEN / EVEN)

CVEN 2009 0 1 42 56

2010 15 0 23 62

EVEN 2009 0 0 20 80

2010 15 0 27 59

Sustainability is a key component

of all engineering disciplines

CVEN 2009 0 1 73 26

2010 10 6 31 53

EVEN 2009 0 6 59 35

2010 5 47 32 11

I am a passionate advocate of

sustainability

CVEN 2009 3 22 65 10

EVEN 2009 0 8 51 41

Both the CVEN and EVEN students felt less strongly that sustainability was a key component of

all engineering disciplines. Evidence for some confusion with Clicker use in 2010 was the fact

that 4% of the EVEN class registered choice “E”, which did not exist. In particular, the 2010

disagree results for EVEN seem to indicate they feel that other engineering disciplines may not

care about sustainability. In 2009 the students were also asked if they were passionate advocates

of sustainability; 41% of the students in the EVEN course strongly agreed with this statement,

much higher than among the CVEN students.

The sustainability homework required the students to define sustainability, comment on the

sustainable development principles articulated by the Royal Academy of Engineering and the

Hannover Principles, and identify sustainability elements within engineering projects. The data

indicate that the students generally exhibited a good understanding of sustainability and included

all three pillars. For the sustainability definition in the 2010 civil engineering class, 100% of the

students included societal aspects, 1 student (of 57) was missing environmental aspects in their

definition, 7 students only weakly included economic aspects, and 3 students did not include

future aspects. For the sustainability definition in the 2010 environmental engineering class, the

strongest elements were environmental (only 1% missing, 6% weak), societal (3% missing, 8%

weak), and economic (3% missing, 9% weak); many students did not articulate future

considerations in their sustainability definition (36% missing, 6% weak). For the case study, the

sustainability elements were scored using a rubric from 0 to 3, and the average scores of the civil

engineering students for societal, economic, and environmental aspects were 2.43, 2.39, and

2.37, respectively; the scores for the environmental engineering students were somewhat higher

averaging 2.84, 2.81, and 2.75, respectively [but different student graders could account for these

small differences, as inter-rater reliability of the data has yet to be established]. However, there

was little evidence that the students considered sustainability an ethical imperative; as shown in

Table 5 very few students included the term ethic(s/al) in their discussion.

Table 5. Percentage of the sustainability homework assignments that included the term ethics

Year

Course 2009 2010

CVEN 5 9

EVEN 1 4

Ethics Module

The fourth unit in the semester in both courses discussed ethics. There were two lectures on

ethics and then the students completed a homework assignment on ethics that was worth 20% of

their overall course grade. The assignment required students to consult the ASCE and/or NSPE

codes of ethics (http://www.asce.org/Content.aspx?id=7231;

http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html), answer questions regarding one to three

cases from the Online Ethics website (http://www.onlineethics.org; the specific cases selected

varied each year), and compare the CU student honor code and the engineering professional

codes of ethics. The assignment also allowed the students to learn about one “moral exemplar”

from the Online Ethics website (http://www.onlineethics.org/); some of these individuals can be

considered to epitomize sustainability ethics. The civil engineers chose between William

LeMessurier (a structural engineer), Inez Austin (whistle-blower for unsafe practices during the

Hanford clean-up), and Fred Cuny (global development resulting from conflicts). The

environmental engineers chose between Rachel Carson, Inez Austin, and Fred Cuny. Of these

moral exemplars, LeMessurier had the least obvious connection to sustainability; the

environmental pillar was not represented in his Citicorp case study. However, that case was the

most popular among the civil engineering students, with 61%, 53%, and 52% selecting that case

among the three options in 2008, 2009, and 2010, respectively. For the other individuals, all

three pillars of sustainability are well represented within their cases. In 2008, 2009, and 2010, all

of the environmental engineers also learned about Marc Edwards and the problem of lead in

Washington D.C. drinking water. The Marc Edwards case was also discussed in the second

lecture in the CVEN and EVEN courses in 2010.

A word search of the homework assignments for the term sustainability and/or sustainable found

that the use of the term in the CVEN course varied from 29 to 47% of the students; compared to

a consistent 26 to 29% of the EVEN students (Table 6). The most discussion of sustainability

was by the CVEN students in 2009; in that year the ethics module (homework 3) immediately

followed the sustainability module (homework 2). However, overall there is no evidence that the

sustainability module preceding the ethics module in 2009 and 2010 increased the discussion of

sustainability on the ethics assignment.

Table 6. Percentage of ethics homework assignments including the term sustainability and/or

sustainable

Year CVEN EVEN

# essays % sustainab(le/ility) # essays % sustainab(le/ility)

2007 NA NA 29 26

2008 28 39 52 29

2009 72 47 65 29

2010 56 29 78 28

To determine if various pillars of sustainability were discussed to varying degrees, word searches

were conducted for the presence/absence of specific terms within the assignments; 16 terms for

environmental, 15 for economic, and 16 for social aspects, similar to those used by Paterson and

Fuchs.23

The environmental search terms were: environment, water, natural resource, energy,

nature, climate, contaminat(e/ion), disaster, ecology, habitat, pollut(e/ion), renewable,

population, recycle, sanitation, and wildlife. The economic search terms were: econom(y/ic),

cost, money, profit, income, afford, invest, debt, financ(e/ial), fiscal, infrastructure, appropriate,

risk, aid, and efficiency. The social search terms were: society, social, public, politics, policy,

culture(e/al), custom, community, educat(e/ion), health, safety, legal, regulat(e/ion),

poor/poverty, language/communicat(e/ion), and life. The number of different terms per

sustainability pillar that were found in each student essay were summed. The average total

scores for the environmental, economic, and social pillars for each year and course are shown in

Figure 1.

Figure 1. Average number of different keywords per sustainability pillar that were found in the

ethics homework assignments

Not surprisingly, the average number of environmental terms were higher in the EVEN

assignments than the CVEN assignments, although in 2010 the CVEN assignments showed a

large gain and were nearly on par with the EVEN class. The economic pillar showed a

decreasing trend over time, with the average number of economic-related terms in the EVEN

essays slightly higher than the CVEN essays. Finally, the greatest number of terms used related

to the social pillar. With the exception of 2007, there was similar representation in the CVEN

and EVEN essays. There was a small increasing trend over time in the use of social-related

terms in the CVEN class.

It might be imagined that sustainability terms, and particularly the environmental elements,

would appear in more of the CVEN student essays when they examined the Cuny and/or Austin

cases. This was only true in 2008 when 64% of the essays that elected to discuss Cuny or Austin

included the term sustainability, compared to only 39% of all the essays from the course. In

2009 and 2010 only 45% and 33% of the Cuny and Austin essays included the term

sustainab(le/ility); similar to the overall course as shown in Table 6.

Students performed well on the assignment (shown in Table 7), indicating a reasonably good

understanding of professional ethics. The scores that individual students received on the

sustainability and ethics assignments were not correlated; the regression correlation coefficient

squared, r2, for each class per semester ranged from 0.10 to 0.20.

Table 7. Average percentage grades of the students on the sustainability and ethics assignments

Average sustainability homework score Average ethics homework scores

Course 2007 2008 2009 2010 2007 2008 2009 2010

CVEN NA NA 91 90 NA 94 84; 88* 85; 92*

EVEN NA NA 93 86; 92* 91 91 91 87; 92*

* median reported since significantly different than the average due to assignments receiving late

submission penalties

CVEN Special Topic Papers

The civil engineering students were assigned to research one of 15 different topics that

represented a significant disaster (such as the levee collapses in New Orleans due to Hurricane

Katrina; Minneapolis I35 bridge collapse), controversial project (such as the Three Gorges Dam

in China) or exemplary project (such as the structures built in China for the 2010 Olympics).

The requirements for the student research papers on these topics were quite open-ended, and did

not include any specific instructions to discuss ethics or sustainability associated with the

projects. Therefore, content analysis for the spontaneous inclusion of these elements by the

students indicated how important the students considered these items. The content analysis

results are summarized in Table 8. Significantly more students included the term

sustainab(le/ity) in their essays in 2009 and 2010 when the sustainability unit was included in the

class prior to the essay assignment. Discussion of societal impacts increased over time.

Table 8. Percentage of CVEN special topic papers that contained various search terms

Year ethic(s/al) sustainab

(le/ility)

environment societ

(y/al)

econom

(y/ic)

Ethics +

sustainability

2008 8 5 60 15 25 0

2009 3 21 54 24 21 0

2010 9 24 56 35 73 2

Final Reflective Essays

At the end of the semester the students were required to write reflective essays about the

engineering profession. The prompts asked the students to discuss: how you define

(CVEN/EVEN); what you learned about the profession from the guest speakers; why you do or

do not want to be a (CVEN/EVEN) based on experiences prior to CU, this course, and your other

courses; specific aspects of (CVEN/EVEN) that do/do not appeal to you; skills and attributes per

the BOK and ABET that are your strengths/weaknesses/things you enjoy. In addition, the civil

engineering students discussed a professional society meeting or other professional development

activity that they attended. The essays were required to be at least two pages long, single-

spaced.

Word content analyses were conducted of all of the essays. Each essay was scored for presence

or absence of a selected search term. The numbers of times that search terms occurred within

individual essays were not determined. Results are summarized in Table 9. First, a high

percentage of the essays discussed ethics. The discussion of sustainability was significantly

higher in 2009 and 2010, when the course included the module on sustainability. Significantly

more of the EVEN students compared to CVEN students discussed sustainability in 2008 and

2009, but about equal numbers in 2010. However, the context in which students discussed

sustainability varied a lot.

Table 9. Percentage of students who included the terms ethics or sustainability in their final

reflective essays

Course ethics sustainability

2007 2008 2009 2010 2007 2008 2009 2010

CVEN NA 76 86 60 NA 7 52 76

EVEN 79 70 69 61 35 37 79 77

Next, there were an additional 13 search terms identified for each of the sustainability pillars

(environmental, economic, and social); these were the same as described for the ethics

assignment except that a few of the low response items were removed from each pillar

(environmental: removed recycle, wildlife, and sanitation; economic: removed fiscal and income;

social: removed legal, custom, community). Total scores for each student essay from 2010 were

calculated to determine the number of the 13 different terms from each category that the essay

contained. Results are summarized in Figure 2. Not surprisingly, environmental terms appeared

with significantly greater frequency in the essays from the EVEN students (student two-tailed t-

test p value 1E-9). Economic terms appeared more frequently in the essays from the CVEN

students (p value 0.004). Finally, the social terms appeared with slightly higher frequency in the

EVEN student essays (p value 0.001). With the EVEN students, environmental and social terms

appeared with similar frequency, while for the CVEN students social pillars appeared the most,

followed by environmental, and finally economic. The CVEN essays exhibited more balance

among the three pillars. However, the contexts in which each term was used were not

determined.

Figure 2. Average frequency that 13 different terms representing each sustainability pillar were

used in the final student essays in 2010; error bars represent the standard deviation.

Within each pillar the frequency varied that some of the key words appeared in the essays

between the two classes. For example, within the environmental pillar, the search terms for

which the percentage of the essays from the EVEN students were the greatest amount higher

than the CVEN students were: pollut(e/ion) 33%, ecolog(y/ical) 31%, contamina(nt/te/tion) 26%,

and energy 24%. For all of the other terms the percentage of occurrence was only 1 to 14%

higher for the EVEN students. For the economic pillar, the occurrence in the CVEN student

essays exceeded the EVEN students for the terms infrastructure, cost, money, risk, invest,

efficiency, afford, and aid (33%, 30%, 11%, 10%, 9%, 9%, 9%, and 3%, respectively);

occurrence in EVEN student essays exceeded CVEN students for the term econom(y/ic), pay,

appropriate, and financ(e/ial) (15%, 14%, and 7%); debt did not appear in either the CVEN or

EVEN essays. Finally, for the social search terms, the frequency of occurrence was much higher

for the EVEN student essays for the terms health, language, politic(s/al), regulat(e/ion), and

cultur(e/al) at 54%, 36%, 18%, 14%, and 8%; society and poverty/poor appeared in 29% and 8%

more of the CVEN student essays, respectively; all of the other terms were within 6% (public,

life, educate, policy, ethic(s/al), and social).

The essays were also examined for the presence/absence of some additional terms. Although

ethic(s/al) occurred with similar frequency in the EVEN and CVEN essays at 61% and 60%,

respectively, the term protect was used by significantly more EVEN than CVEN students at 47%

versus 14%, respectively. In addition, love and passion were terms included in 45% and 29%,

respectively, of the EVEN student essays compared to only 22% and 8%, respectively, of the

CVEN student essays. An example of a usage context for love in one of the EVEN student

essays was: “Environmental engineering can be defined as applying the principles of

engineering and science to improve the environment and make the earth a better place for all

living organisms... I love being part of this discipline. It is a science that has totally dedicated

itself to save both humanity and the environment.” An example of a usage context for passion in

one of the EVEN student essays was: “I have worked for Environment Colorado over the

summer, and bettering the environment and technology to help with that has always been an

interest of mine. It’s something I feel good and passionate about.” These emotions indicate a

real connection between the topic and personal feelings.

A more detailed examination was conducted of the final essays from 2010 where students

included the term sustainab(le/ility); results are summarized in Table 10. The term

sustainab(le/ility) appeared more frequently in the EVEN essays, but largely due to discussion of

sustainable energy by many students. The contexts in which sustainability was used in the

CVEN and EVEN course essays were surprisingly similar. A large number of both CVEN and

EVEN students included sustainability directly in their final definition of CVEN/EVEN

engineering, respectively; many CVENs indicated that this had been added since their initial

definition provided on homework 1. Along with the term sustainability, many students also

included the social (more CVEN), environmental (more EVEN), economic (similar for both

CVEN and EVEN), and future aspects (more CVEN) explicitly in their engineering definition.

Ethics was also included in many of the definitions of civil engineering. More students indicated

that they enjoyed sustainability and/or considered it a strength, compared to disliking

sustainability. None of the EVEN students indicated a dislike for sustainability; one just stated

that it was a current weakness. Relatively few students indicated that they were truly motivated

by sustainability. For the environmental engineers, more indicated motivation to protect the

environment.

Table 10. Content analysis of the 2010 final essays

CVEN EVEN

% essays that included the term sustainab(le/ility) 76 77

Average # of times the term sustainab(le/ility) was used per essay 2.5 3.3

Maximum # of times sustainab(le/ility) was used in an individual

essay

6 11

% essays where sustainability incorporated into (CVEN/EVEN)

definition

41 38

Of above, % that also explicitly discussed environmental aspects 63 93

Of above, % that also explicitly discussed economic aspects 42 45

Of above, % that also explicitly discussed social aspects 88 69

Of above, % that also explicitly discussed future aspects 46 17

Of above, % that also explicitly discussed ethical aspects 42 7

% essays indicating the sustainability was motivating 14 14

% essays indicating sustainability was enjoyable/a strength 24 27

% essays indicating they disliked sustainability or it was a weakness 14 1

Example quotes that illustrate students who found sustainability motivating are:

In addition, I have been interested in sustainability, but coming into college, I was not sure if

Civil Engineering could foster this interest; however, I have been pleasantly surprised to

learn that sustainability is a key issue in today’s field of Civil Engineering.

I now clearly understand the important role that Civil Engineers play in creating a

sustainable future, and this inspires me to work even harder to become a Civil Engineer.

Example quotes from students who stated they disliked sustainability are:

Some aspects of civil engineering that do not appeal to me are the idea of sustainability.... I

want to be able to design something without the worry that it might negatively impact the

environment, or might in some way negatively affect future generations....

Sustainability is a whole new concept to me and it came as a shock in a way. As far as

weaknesses go, natural sciences, materials science, sustainability, historical perspectives,

and social sciences are all skills that I am not particularly strong in. A big part of this is the

fact that these skills are all things that I am just not interested in. I’m sure if I needed to I

could perform well in any of these skills, I just don’t have the desire to.

The content of [this course] has caused a little doubt in that it made the profession seem

more about pursuing sustainability then passion for creative building.

Example quotes that relate to ethics and sustainability are:

Environmental Engineering is the application of engineering ethics and principles in a way

that will provide for today without compromising tomorrow. Environmental engineers work

to make sure we leave as small a footprint on the Earth as possible. They are able to take the

other disciplines, who are usually isolated from one another, and put them together to create

a “large picture” which we can use to make sure we are creating the most sustainable and

ethical product.

Environmental engineers work to maintain good human practices with regard to economic,

social, and natural sustainability. This class has taught me about considering everything

that goes into the complex idea of “sustainability,” from ethical considerations to legal

matters, to life cycle analysis.

Environmental engineering is the application of science to develop new, sustainable

technologies to protect our environment, the land we live on, the air we breathe and the

water we drink, as well as manage human waste while minimizing environmental impact.

Environmental engineering is a multidisciplinary field of engineering that focuses on the

three pillars of sustainability and ethics. Environmental engineers must not only make sure

that their projects are economically viable and environmentally friendly but also attractive to

the public and the community that is supposed to benefit.

It is the duty of everyone, engineers included, to encourage the transition to a sustainable

existence. [EVEN]

Our nation contains an immense amount of infrastructure, meaning roads, dams, water and

sewer systems, and so on. Civil Engineering is the practice of designing, inspecting, and

sometimes sustaining these pieces of infrastructure. I would keep this definition, at the end

of the semester, but would add to it. It would be good to include that civil engineering is the

completion of said tasks through ethical, sustainable, efficient, environmentally conscious,

and worldly means.

I would attempt now to define Civil Engineering as the collaborative process of designing,

planning, and effectively implementing a project that solves a problem in an ethical, cost-

effective, and sustainable way.

Now, I think about civil engineering as an engineering profession that fulfills projects that

benefit society through a variety of sub disciplines that include structures, construction,

geotechnical, water resources, transportation and environmental. Each sub discipline then

consists of different responsibilities and tasks all geared to improving the society while

upholding engineering ethics, professionalism, sustainability and safety.

In the EVEN essays, the sense of sustainability was often conveyed as an ethical imperative,

while in the civil engineering essays the constraints of sustainability and ethics often appear to be

distinct concepts to the students.

Online Sustainable Engineering Survey

In 2010, an online survey was available to students prior to the first sustainability lecture (pre)

and at the end of the semester (post). The data were anonymous, but demographic questions

allowed the CVEN and EVEN freshmen and sophomore students to be identified. The number

of respondents were: CVEN 28 pre, 20 post; EVEN 56 pre, 27 post. Self efficacy as measured

by students‟ self-ratings of confidence to perform 13 sustainable engineering related tasks on a

scale of 0 to 100 increased more on average among the CVEN students (13.4) compared to the

EVEN students (6.4). For example confidence in ability to “understand the meaning and

application of sustainable engineering” increased from 61 to 79 among the CVEN students and

59 to 72 among the EVEN students. For the 22 6-point Likert questions (scale 0 to 5) related to

the motivation construct, there were generally minor differences in the average pre versus post

responses. For example, on the question most related to personal sustainability ethic (I feel a

sense of responsibility for considering sustainability when developing engineering solutions)

both the average pre and post ratings among both the CVEN and EVEN students were 4.2 with a

standard deviation ranging from 1.0 to 0.8. In response to the statement „engineering education

should involve learning how to assess social and economic impacts of an engineering solution’,

the average response among the CVEN and EVEN students in both the pre and post surveys

were similar at 4.1-4.2 with standard deviation ranging from 0.5 to 1.1. On the pre survey, eight

other questions related to sustainability attitudes had higher responses among the EVEN

students; on average 0.5 to 1.0 points higher than the average ratings among the CVEN students.

Summary

Comparing the data in Tables 3 and 9, the discussion of ethics decreased from the first to the last

assignments in both the CVEN and EVEN classes in 2007 and 2008; ethics discussion increased

in 2009 and 2010. Discussion of sustainability decreased from the first to the last assignment in

the CVEN class in 2008 and stayed about constant for the EVEN students in 2008; sustainability

discussion increased in all other years for both the CVEN and EVEN students. The

sustainability and ethics modules may therefore be complementary and reinforce these themes to

students. Students in first-year courses largely believed that both ethics and sustainability are

important topics for civil and environmental engineers, and were able to demonstrate knowledge

of these topics in the context of homework assignments. The extent to which CVEN and EVEN

students view sustainability as a design constraint and find it motivating were similar between

the two groups of students. However, more CVEN students indicated that they disliked

sustainability as compared to the EVEN students. The extent to which the students view

sustainability as an ethical imperative can only be inferred using the assessment methods in this

study, but seemed somewhat higher among the EVEN students as compared to CVEN students

where ethics and sustainability appeared to be two distinct ideas. The sustainability and/or ethics

lectures and/or assignments could be reframed to more explicitly present the idea of

sustainability ethics to the students.

Bibliography

1. AAEE - American Academy of Environmental Engineers. 2009. Environmental Engineering Body of

Knowledge. AAEE, Annapolis, MD.

http://www.cece.ucf.edu/bok/pdf/EnvE_Body_of_Knowledge_Final.pdf 2. ABET. 2009. Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs. Effective for Evaluations During the 2010-2011

Accreditation Cycle. ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission. www.abet.org

3. AICHE (American Institute of Chemical Engineers) Code of ethics. http://www.aiche.org/About/Code.aspx

4. Allen, D., Allenby, B., Bridges, M., Crittenden, J., Davidson, C., Hendrickson, C., Matthews, S., Murphy, C.,

and Pijawka, D. (2008). Benchmarking Sustainable Engineering Education: Final Report. US EPA Grant X3-

83235101-0.

5. Allenby, B. 2006. Macroethical systems and sustainability science. Sustain. Sci. 1. 7-13.

6. ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). 2008. Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21st

Century. Preparing the Civil Engineer for the Future. Second Edition. ASCE. Reston, VA. www.asce.org

7. ASCE. 2006. Policy Statement 517, Millennium Development Goals. http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/

policy_details.cfm?hdlid=514

8. ASCE. 2004. Policy 418, The Role of the Civil Engineer in Sustainable Development. Adopted by the Board of

Direction, October 19 2004. http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/policy_details.cfm?hdlid=60

9. ASCE Committee on Sustainability. 2004. Sustainable Engineering Practice: An Introduction. ASCE Press.

10. ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers). 2009. Code of Ethics of Engineers, Article C2.1.1 in the

ASME Constitution. http://files.asme.org/asmeorg/governance/3675.pdf

11. Bielefeldt, A.R. 2011 (in press). Incorporating a sustainability module into first-year courses for civil and

environmental engineering students. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice.

12. Catalano, G.D. 2006. Engineering Ethics: Peace, Justice, and the Earth. Morgan & Claypool.

13. Herkert, J. ABET‟s Engineering Criteria 2000 and Engineering Ethics: Where Do We Go From Here. 1999.

http://www.onlineethics.org/Education/instructessays/herkert2.aspx

14. Herkert, J.R. 2005. Ways of thinking about and teaching ethical problem solving: microethics and macroethics

in engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11, 373-385.

15. IEEE. http://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html

16. Lattuca, L.R., Terenzini, P.T., and Volkwein, J.F. 2006. Engineering Change: A study of the impact of

EC2000. ABET, Inc. Baltimore, MD.

17. Lieffer, P., Graff, R.W., Lee, B.K., Batts, M. 2009. The changing of the guard: should the engineering ethics

code to changed to environmental ethics? ASEE Annual Conference. Paper AC 2009-1550.

18. Loui, M.C. 2005. Ethics and the development of professional identities of engineering students. Journal of

Engineering Education. 94(4), 383-390.

19. McCormick, M., Lawyer, K., Berlin, M., Swan, C., Paterson, K, Bielefeldt, A., and Wiggins, J. 2010.

Evaluation of sustainable engineering education via service learning and community service efforts. ASEE

Annual Conference, Paper AC 200-1102.

20. Miyake, A., Kost-Smith, L.E., Finkelstein, N.D., Pollock, S.J., Cohen, G.L., and Ito, T.A. 2010. Reducing the

gender achievement gap in college science: a classroom study of values affirmation. Science, 330, 1234-1237.

21. National Academy of Engineering. 2004. The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the New Century.

National Academies Press.

22. NSPE (National Society of Professional Engineers). 2007. Code of Ethics for Engineers. Publication #1102.

NSPE, Alexandria, VA. http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html

23. Paterson, K. and Fuchs. 2008. Development for the other 80%: Engineering hope. Australasian Journal of

Engineering Education, 14, 1, 2-10.

24. Rowden, K. and Striebig, B. 2004. Incorporating environmental ethics into the undergraduate engineering

curriculum. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10, 417-422.

25. Veeraghanta, S.V. and Frost, J.W. 2004. Integrating sustainability within ethic discourse: a freshman

perspective. ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition.

26. Vesilind, P.A. and Gunn, A.S. 1998. Sustainable development and the ASCE Code of Ethics. J. Prof. Issues in

Engineering and Practice. 124, 3, 72-74.

27. Walden, S.E. and Foor, C. 2008. What‟s to keep you from dropping out? Student immigration into and within

engineering. Journal of Engineering Education. 97, 2, 191-205.

28. Wiggins, J., McCormick, M., Lawyer, K., Bielefeldt, A., Swan, C., and Paterson, K. 2011 (in review). Service

Learning: Motivating students to engineer sustainably. ASEE Annual Conference. Paper AC …