Faculty and Student Attitudes Toward Community Service: A Comparative Analysis

By Bauer, E Heidi; Moskal, Barbara; Gosink, Joan; Lucena, Juan; Muoz, David

ABSTRACT

The Humanitarian Engineering initiative, sponsored by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, at the Colorado School of Mines, is creating a program that will support engineering students in understanding their responsibility for solving community development problems that exist throughout the world. As part of this effort, data has been collected on faculty and student attitudes using the “Community Service Attitudes Scale,” developed and validated by Shiarella, McCarthy, and Tucker. During the fall 2004, 78 students and 34 faculty members responded to this instrument. Statistically significant differences were found between the attitudes of students and faculty, males and females, and among different age groupings with respect to service activities. A general finding was that faculty displayed better attitudes toward community service than the students.

Keywords: community service, humanitarian engineering, service learning

INTRODUCTION

Since the Marshall Plan of 1947 and President Truman’s famous ‘Point Four’ of his inaugural address in 1949, United States foreign policy has stressed the importance of applying technical knowledge to aid less-developed countries [I]. According to Truman [2], “…we [United States] should make available to peace-loving peoples the benefits of our store of technical knowledge in order to help them realize their aspirations for a better life. And, in cooperation with other nations, we should foster capital investment in areas needing development.” This has resulted in more than five decades of U.S. funding for humanitarian projects; however, because most U.S. engineers are socialized to work in the corporate sector, and typically follow this as a career path, few have made substantial contributions to the solution of the humanitarian and community- development problems that face other nations. The few engineers who do work in U.S. aid and development organizations must commit to the objectives of U.S. foreign policy, which emphasizes macroeconomic growth and expansion of free markets instead of the fulfillment of basic human needs.

At the same time, prominent engineers and educators have been concerned by engineering graduates’ reluctance to enter political life, community service, and international work in the nonprofit sector [3]. Furthermore, the public’s attitude toward engineering is not encouraging [4]. Leaders in the engineering profession and engineering education have come to acknowledge that many Americans believe engineering is irrelevant to humanity’s present and future needs, and this belief has contributed to the steady decline of engineering enrollment over the last decade, as well as the persistent under-representation of women and minorities in engineering. Engineering students are often perceived to be more concerned with their personal vocational interests and material goals than they are with society at large [5-13].

Engineers who do seek to solve the problems of fulfilling basic human needs are likely to require a different education from that which is traditionally provided in an engineering program. These engineers will need an understanding of, and sensitivity to, human and natural systems and an ethical framework upon which to base engineering decisions as well as a technical education. Engineering schools have started the process of developing and implementing courses to match these needs by introducing courses in global and ethical awareness. For example, Arizona State has offered an elective course on “Global Awareness” to students in Biomdical Engineering. The primary goal of this course is to “…increase the students’ awareness of environmental, economic, legal, social, and ethical consideration that relate to the global impact of bioengineering technology.. .[14].” In addition, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and the Colorado School of Mines are offering an elective course on “Engineering Cultures” which is designed to provide engineering students with the knowledge, skills, and predisposition to define and solve problems with people who think differently than they do [15]. Furthermore, courses designed to assist future engineers in developing an ethical awareness have been widely implemented [16-17] and their effectiveness has been examined [18-19]. The next logical step in this process is the creation of a coherent engineering curriculum that supports students in developing not only an ethical awareness of the worldwide human condition but also a responsibility to use their engineering knowledge to solve problems concerning basic human needs. One manner in which to advance toward this goal is the creation of a curriculum that recognizes the importance of community service within a global society. In theory, the offering of such a curriculum would result in an increase in the appeal of engineering as a potential career to a broader population.

An example of a curriculum that recognizes the value of community service is provided by Coyle, Jamieson, and Oakes [2O]. They describe the “Engineering Projects in Community Service” program which was developed at Purdue University and is now offered at 17 different schools, including one high school. This program creates a partnership among student teams and nonprofit organizations from the local community, where the nonprofit organizations act as clients to the student teams. Students who participate in these partnerships may do so for up to four years, throughout their undergraduate education, and receive laboratory course credit. They have found that this program is particularly appealing to female students. This type of experience helps students to recognize the direct benefit that engineering may have on the community.

Another approach, which embraces global as well as community service components, is being explored at the Colorado School of Mines (CSM). The Engineering Division and the Liberal Arts and International Studies Division at CSM, with funding from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, have undertaken a new initiative that will prepare engineering students for careers that will benefit underserved communities both within the U.S. and abroad. Specifically, this interdisciplinary collaboration within CSM is creating a sequence of courses that will help engineering students to understand the ethical, cultural, historical, and technical dimensions of engineering work applied to community development in the U.S. and abroad. One of the primary goals of this effort is to create a culture of acceptance and value of community and international service activities throughout CSM faculty and students. The efforts of this “Humanitarian Engineering” initiative at CSM are consistent with ABET’s engineering criterion (h), which states, “Engineering programs must demonstrate that their graduates have: the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context.” This four-year project began at the start of the academic year 2003-2004, during which new courses, projects, and assessment activities were pilot tested. A major component of this curriculum is the completion of an engineering capstone servicelearning project during the students’ senior year. A number of conference papers have been presented in an attempt to disseminate the activities of the Humanitarian Engineering initiative to a broad range of scientific and engineering communities [21-33]. Additional constituencies of this new minor program, beyond the governmental organizations previously mentioned, include technical multinational firms. In particular, the mining and resource industries have recognized the importance of seeking a “social license to operate” and have identified the need for engineers educated with enhanced social and cultural awareness to better meet the challenges associated with sustainable development for the corporation and their stakeholders [33].

This paper describes and compares student and faculty attitudes with respect to service activities prior to the proposed curricular changes that will result from the Humanitarian Engineering project. The promise of using a service-learning curriculum to attract students to the field of engineering cannot be fulfilled if students do not have somewhat positive attitudes with respect to service learning when they enter the major. Furthermore, understanding faculty and student attitudes toward service learning can help to inform the development of training for faculty who will teach these courses and the curriculum for engineering students completing these courses. Information was also needed on the attitudes of under- represented populations with respect to service activities. If women, minorities, and nontraditional students (i.e., students over the age of twenty by their sophomore year) do not have positive attitudes with respect to service activities, then the implementation of this type of curriculum is unlikely to attract their increased participation. Unfortunately, CSM does not have a large enough minority populationto examine the attitudes of minorities with respect to service activities in engineering. Therefore, this research investigation addresses only the attitudes of males and females and traditional and nontraditional students. These data will also provide a baseline from which to track attitudinal changes as a result of this program over time. The research questions that guide this investigation are as follows:

1. What attitudinal differences exist between engineering faculty and students with respect to service learning?

2. What attitudinal differences exist between males and females with respect to service learning?

3. What attitudinal differences exist between engineering students who are twenty and younger and those who are older than twenty with respect to service learning?

4. How do the identified differences help to inform the development of faculty training and curriculum for service learning courses?

In the fall of 2004, data were collected on both the faculty and student attitudes at CSM towards service activities using the Community Service Attitudes Scale (CSAS) which was developed and validated by Shiarella, McCarthy, and Tucker [34]. The CSAS has been utilized by other researchers to investigate attitudes toward service learning in only one other field: gerontology [35]. To our knowledge, the current study is the first time that the CSAS has been used to investigate student and faculty attitudes toward service learning in engineering education. Seventy-eight students and 35 faculty members responded to this assessment instrument in the fall of 2004. Three conference papers have previously been published based on this work [36^38], and this article represents a compilation and extension of these prior efforts.

II. METHODS

This section describes the course in which the data were collected, the student and faculty populations that participated in this investigation, and the instrument that was used.

A. Course

The Multidisciplinary Engineering Laboratory (MEL) course sequence at CSM is a three-semester sequence of engineering laboratory courses (MEL I, II, and III) that are designed to mimic industrial practices by combining traditional disciplinary topics like electrical circuits, fluid flow, and material stress into automated, integrated, measurement systems. Through this sequence of courses, engineering students learn to connect concepts that are introduced through their various engineering courses. Over time, the subject matter of the MEL sequence increases in depth and multidisciplinary breadth.

MEL I is a 1.5 credit-hour course required for all engineering students, regardless of specialty. Civil and environmental specialties are also required to complete MELII, and mechanical and electrical specialties are required to complete the entire sequence. MELI was selected to be the focus of this investigation because it is required of all engineering majors. Additionally, it is recommended that students complete MEL I by the spring of their sophomore year. At this point in the students’ undergraduate studies, they have not yet had the opportunity to complete a course that is offered through the Humanitarian Engineering program. They have, however, received a very general lecture containing examples of humanitarian engineers in a required freshman class called Nature and Human Values.

B. Subjects

For the purpose of this investigation, data were collected from both engineering students and faculty. AH appropriate human subjects procedures were followed.

1) Students: During the second and third week of classes in fall 2004, the 101 students enrolled in various sections of MELI were asked to sign a project participation consent form. Students who agreed to participate in the investigation then completed the CSAS. To ensure consistency in the administration process, the five instructors leading the seven sections of MEL were given written administration instructions. Seventy-eight of the 101 students (77.2 percent) agreed to participate in this study and completed the CSAS.

2) Faculty: Engineering faculty members were invited to participate in this study during the first faculty meeting of the 2004-2005 academic year. As was the case with students, faculty members were first asked to provide their consent to participate. Faculty members at all levels-full, associate, and assistant professors; lecturers; and adjunct/instructors-were included. Those who agreed to participate completed the CSAS. For those faculty members who were not present at this meeting, the division director sent a letter of invitation to participate. Attached to this letter were the CSAS and instructions for submitting the completed consent form and survey.

Of the 58 faculty members, thirty-four (58.6 percent) returned the consent form and survey.

C. Community Service Attitudes Scale

The CSAS was developed and validated by Shiarella, McCarthy, and Tucker [34]. The survey developers were contacted and their consent was acquired to use the CSAS in the investigation. The only alterations that were made to the CSAS were with regard to demographic information. Different demographic information was collected from students than was collected from faculty. The remaining 46 questions were that of the original CSAS instrument.

The CSAS was developed based on Schwartz’s [39,40] altruistic helping behavior model which consists of four phases [34]. These phases are displayed in Table 1. The first phase reflects an individual’s acknowledgement or awareness of a need for community service. This is followed by a belief that oneself is morally obligated to act on such awareness- the second phase. The third phase is an individual’s evaluation of the costs and the benefits of participating in a community service activity. The fourth and final phase is an overt response, or an action that is taken with respect to community service. Theoretically, an individual passes through each phase in a sequential order before reaching the final phase in which the individual makes the decision to engage in community service. As is reflected in Table 1, each phase is divided into subphases. Each of these subphases is measured through questions on the CSAS that are specifically designed to measure the extent to which the respondent displays beliefs consistent with the given subphase.

As is suggested by Table 1, the activation phase is subdivided into four subphases: awareness, actions, ability, and connectedness. For example, the awareness subphase measures the respondent’s recognition that others are in need. The actions subphase measures the respondent’s belief that actions could relieve the perceived human need. The ability subphase measures the respondent’s recognition of his or her own ability to provide the appropriate assistance, and the connectedness subphase measures the respondent’s sense of responsibility to become involved based on a sense of connectedness with the community of the people in need.

The second phase is the obligation phase which is divided into two subphases: norms and empathy. The norm subphase measures the extent to which the respondent feels a moral obligation to provide help, generated through personal or situational norms. The empathy subphase measures the extent to which the respondent feels a moral obligation generated through empathy to provide assistance.

The third phase is the defense phase. This phase is divided into three subphases: costs, benefits, and seriousness. The cost subphase is designed to measure the respondent’s assessment of personal costs associated with helping, and the benefits subphase is designed to measure the respondent’s assessment of personal benefits associated with helping. The seriousness subphase measures the respondent’s reassessment of the human need based on the seriousness of the need.

The fourth and final phase is the response phase. This phase consists of two subphases: intention to engage in community service, and desire to participate in service learning. The first subphase, intention to engage in community service, consists of a question that is designed to measure whether the respondent will participate in community service activities. The second subphase, desire to participate in service learning, is designed to measure the extent to which the respondent intends on participating in service learning activities.

In the development of the CSAS, Shiarella, McCarthy, and Tucker [34] completed a factor analysis to determine whether there were linear combinations of the community service attitude questions that conformed to the Schwartz model. This analysis resulted in a five- factor solution. However, an eight-factor solution was adopted by Shiarella, McCarthy, and Tucker [34] in order to be consistent with Schwartz’s theory and the research that supports this theory. As is displayed in Table 2, survey questions were assigned to the factor on which the pattern coefficient was largest. The majority of factors aligned with complete subphases. The benefits subphase, however, was divided into two factors with the “other benefits” comprising one factor (Vl) and “career benefits” comprising the other factor (VIII). In this investigation, student and faculty attitudes toward service learning are examined based on both phases and factors as defined by Shiarella, McCarthy, and Tucker [34]. Theoretically, the phases are a sequential process that individuals are assumed to pass through prior to selecting to participate in service learning activities and are based on Schwartz’s theoretical model. The factors are statistical manifestations that emerge through an analysis of correlations among the respondents’ responses to the survey questions.

III. RESULTS

This section begins with a description of the analysis process. This is followed by statistical comparisons between faculty and students, males and females and among different age groupings with respect to each phase and eac\h factor.

A. Analysis Process

Student and faculty demographics and responses to the CSAS were entered into an Excel spreadsheet for analysis purposes. Each question on the CSAS was examined to determine whether a high score indicated a positive or negative attitude with regard to the given question. The coding of responses to negative questions was reversed before entering them into the database. In other words, a high score in the database always reflected a positive attitude. The scale offered a minimum value of one and a maximum value of seven, with four reflecting the divide between positive and negative attitudes.

Next, the data were analyzed based on phases and subphases and then on factors. For each respondent, an average was calculated with regard to their responses within each of the three parameters. Higher averages within a given parameter suggested a more positive attitude with respect to that category. Questions that were not answered were treated as missing data and were not included in the analysis. Table 3 reports the occurrence of missing data. Furthermore, if a subject failed to record pertinent demographic information (e.g., age, gender), that subject’s responses were eliminated from the associated analysis. These omissions result in minor discrepancies between the reported number of participants and the numbers used in the analyses.

Three demographic groupings, each consisting of two independent categories, were selected to compare phases, subphases, and factors. These groupings include: (1) faculty and students, (2) males and females, and (3) students aged 20 and under and students aged over 20. The selected divide of twenty years of age is based on knowledge that the typical or “traditional” student at CSM enters immediately following high school. By their sophomore year, these students have reached the age of 19 or 20. Students older than 20 by their sophomore year are those who have experienced a delay in their education, such as transferring from another college, entering college at least a year after high school graduation, or completing courses out of sequence. These students are likely to have different backgrounds and experiences than traditional students.

Unpaired t-tests were used for statistical comparisons between each of these demographic groupings. Although the /-test is designed for the analysis of continuous data, it can also be used to estimate the p-value for discrete data, assuming a large sample size and a ratio scale. Therefore, the assumption is being made here that the seven-point scale offered in response to each question reflects a ratio scale. All of the groupings with the exception of females have an appropriate sample size. Therefore, only cautious comparisons are made between males and females. Although a multiple analysis of variance within phases and factors would have allowed for the examination of interactions among the various demographic groupings, the sample size in several of the demographic groupings was too small to support such an analysis. The comparisons of phases and factors are described in the next several sections with statistical significance evaluated for α = 0.05.

B. Faculty versus Students

1) Phases-Faculty versus Students: Table 4 displays the average faculty and student responses within each phase and subphase. Statistically significant differences were found for phases 1, 3, and 4 and for the following subphases: ability, connectedness, costs, benefits, and helping/intention. With the exception of the benefits subphase, faculty attitudes were higher than student attitudes.

Figure 1 displays a comparison of the average score for faculty and students for each of the four phases. The higher average for faculty as compared to students is reflected in this figure. This figure also suggests an overall trend for both faculty and student attitudes across the progression of the phases. Average scores for both faculty and student are high with respect to the first and second phase and then reduced in the third phase. There is another increase with respect to attitudes in the fourth phase. Based on the premise of the developers of the CSAS, the drop in attitudes during the third phase could adversely impact both faculty and students’ willingness to participate in service activities.

2) Factors-Faculty versus Students: Table 5 displays the average faculty and the average student response within each factor. These average scores are also displayed in Figure 2. Statistically significant differences were found for factors I, II, III, IV, V, and VIII. For the first five of these comparisons, the faculty attitudes were significantly higher than the student attitudes. For factor VIII, the faculty attitudes were significantly lower than the student attitudes. Once again, factor VIII refers to career benefits.

3) Phases and Factors-Faculty versus Students: The conclusions that are drawn from the analysis of the factors help to confirm the observations made through the phases and subphase analysis. For example, Factors II (Connectedness), III (Costs), and V (Intention to Engage in Helping Behavior), as well as the subphases which have similar names to each of these three factors, are found to be significantly different. Thus, faculty demonstrated significantly higher attitudes than students regarding connectedness, costs, and intention associated with community service in more than one type of analysis.

Additionally, contrasting the significantly different phases and subphases to the significantly different factors also yields insight. For example, the benefits subphase is found to be significantly different between faculty and students. However, the benefits subphase is divided into two separate factors: other benefits (Factor IV) and career benefits (Factor VIII), and only the latter of which is found to be significantly different in the analysis of the factors. Thus, it can be concluded that the three questions referring to career benefits were responsible for the significant difference in the overall benefits subphase.

C. Male versus Female

1) Phases-Male versus Female: The next comparison that was made analyzed male verus female attitudes with respect to service activities. Given the small number of females who participated in this investigation, both faculty and students were included in this analysis. Table 6 displays the average score with regard to each phase and subphase as was observed between males and females. Visual inspection of this table suggests only small differences.

The t-tests performed to examine statistically significant differences are also displayed in Table 6. As this table suggests, only one statistically significant difference was identified and this was with regard to the awareness subphase. Females displayed a greater awareness with regard to community service than did males. This result must be interpreted with caution due to the small sample of participating females.

Figure 3 displays a comparison of the average score for men and women for each of the four phases. Figure 3 illustrates that there is a reduction in both male and female attitudes with respect to phase 3. This is the same phase in which a drop was witnessed for faculty and students.

2) Factors-Male versus Female: The same data for males and females was also analyzed with regard to factors. Table 7 displays the average score with regard to each factor as was observed between males and females, and Figure 4 displays the average scores in a graphical fashion. As in the phase analysis, this table and figure indicate only small differences. A t-test was completed on each factor to examine statistically significant differences. As this table suggests, only one statistically significant difference was identified and this was with regard to factor IV. Factor IV concerns awareness and empathy. Females displayed a greater awareness and empathy with regard to community service than did males. This result must also be interpreted with caution due to the small sample of participating females.

3) Phases and Factors-Male versus Female: Again, contrasting the two different analyses yields greater insight into the different attitudes between males and females. The only significantly different factor separating male and female attitudes was factor IV, which combines the subphases of awareness and empathy. However, the only significandy different phase or subphase was awareness; the empathy subphases did not indicate a significandy different attitude between males and females. Thus, it can be assumed that the questions associated with the awareness subphase were responsible for the significant difference in factor IV.

D. Student Age Groupings

1) Phases-Student Age Groupings: For analysis purposes, the students who participated in this investigation were divided into two age categories: (1) those 20 years of age and under and (2) those greater than 20 years of age. Table 8 displays the average score for each of these categories with respect to each phase and subphase. Only one statistically significant difference was identified via t-tests, and this was with regard to the reassessment phase. Although no significant differences were noted in any of the subphases that comprise this phase, the differences in the costs, benefits, and seriousness subphases combined create an overall significant difference in the third phase. Those over the age of 20 had more positive attitudes with regard to the reassessment of community service than did those that were 20 years of age or younger. Figure 5 further illustrates that the drop that occurs in the third phase can be witnessed in both age groupings.

2) Factors-Student Age Groupings: The same data for student age groupings was analyzed with regard to factors. The average scores for each factor are displayed in Table 9 and Figure 6. Once again, t- tests were performed between the categories with respe\ct to each factor in order to identify statistically significant differences. Only one statistically significant difference was identified and this was with regard to factor VI which concerns benefits to others. Those students over the age of 20 had more positive attitudes with regard to community service and its benefits to others than did those who were 20 years of age or younger.

3) Phases and Factors-Student Age Groupings: Comparing and contrasting the results of the analysis of phases to the analysis of factors yields additional insight to the different attitudes of students of different ages. The only significant difference in the phase and subphase analysis is the overall phase 3: reassessment. The individual subphases in this phase of costs, benefits, and seriousness did not produce significant results. However, looking at the significant difference in the analysis of factors helped identify the aspect within phase 3 that created a significant difference. In the analysis of factors, the benefits subphase within phase 3 was separated into two factors: other benefits (Factor IV) and career benefits (Factor VIII), and only the former of which is found to be significantly different in the analysis of factors. Thus, it can be assumed that the three questions referring to benefits other than career benefits were primarily responsible for the significant difference in phase 3. It is also interesting to observe that older students when compared to younger students do not display lower values in the benefits subphase, as was witnessed for faculty. This suggests that it is unlikely to be age that contributed to the differences between faculty and students’ attitudes toward the career benefits associated with community service.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

As the results suggest, there were a number of statistically significant findings with respect to community service as measured by the CSAS. In general, faculty had more positive attitudes with respect to community service than did students. The only exception to this observation that students displayed a statistically significant higher score was with respect to career benefits. This result suggests that students were more likely to believe that their careers would directly benefit from participating in community service than were faculty. Further information concerning this result was provided through the analysis of student age groupings. No statistically significant results with respect to career benefits were found between the students in the different age groupings. Therefore, age was not the factor that contributed to the identified difference between faculty and students with respect to this subphase. If age had been the factor, then we would have expected older students to display a pattern that was similar to the faculty. Therefore, it appears that it is the nature of being a faculty member that has contributed to this result. One possible explanation for this is that faculty may have a greater sense of job security than do students and this leads faculty to assign less importance to the impact that community service may have on future career benefits. A concern, however, is that faculty may reflect this attitude during instruction to their students resulting in a reduction of students’ positive attitudes in this same area. This needs to be addressed through the training that is provided to faculty who teach service learning curriculum.

Comparisons were also made across genders. Examining the means within each gender for each phase and factor suggests that, in general, there was little difference between male and female attitudes with respect to service activities. There was one exception to this observation. Women appeared to have a greater awareness of the importance of community service than did men. These findings are inconsistent with prior research which indicates that women find service learning curriculum more appealing than men [20,23]. It is unlikely that this appeal would not be reflected in their attitudes. One possibility is that the limited number of women that participated in the current investigation (n = 14) prevented the identification of true attitudinal differences between men and women. Further research is needed with a larger female sample that examines the differences between male and female attitudes with respect to service learning in engineering. If the current finding is confirmed, then the inclusion of a service learning curriculum is unlikely to have the desired outcome of increasing female participation in the field.

Another observation that can be made from the data is that students who were over the age of 20 had statistically more positive attitudes with respect to the reassessment phase, which includes the costs, benefits, and seriousness subphases, and with respect to factor VI, which addresses the benefits of service to others, than did younger students with regard to community service. In other words, older students were more likely to recognize the positive impact that service has on others than were younger students. This observation appears to be consistent with the earlier finding that faculty had more positive attitudes with respect to the reassessment phase than do students. Faculty, after all, are older than most of their students. Therefore, it is possible that age is the factor that underlies both of these observations. From a auricular standpoint, since the majority of our students are under the age of twenty, greater attention may need to be dedicated to discussions of the costs, benefits, and seriousness of service learning during instruction.

Across faculty and students, males and females and the different age groups, there was a consistent drop in attitudes with regard to the third phase as compared to the other phases. This phase concerned recognizing the costs, benefits, and seriousness of the impact of community service. Based on these results, effective training and curricula are likely to target the improvement of both faculty and student attitudes with respect to the subphases that comprise phase 3, costs, benefits, and seriousness. Based on Schwartz’s model, a reduction in attitudes in any given phase can result in an individual’s failure to participate in service activities.

The purpose of this investigation was to collect data concerning faculty and student attitudes with regard to community service with the purpose of informing auricular interventions that are being implemented as part of the Humanitarian Engineering initiative at CSM. These data suggest that differences currently exist between the attitudes of students and faculty, males and females, and older and younger students at CSM with respect to service activities. Further research is needed concerning the attitudinal differences of various minority populations with respect to service activities as well as to examine the extent to which these findings can be generalized beyond the CSM population. Knowledge of these differing attitudes can and is being using to refine instructional efforts with respect to service learning at CSM.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors wish to acknowledge the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation’s support of the Humanitarian Engineering initiative at the Colorado School of Mines.

REFERENCES

[1] Rist, G., The History of Development: From Western Origins to Global Faith, New York, NY: Zed Books, 2002.

[2] “1949 Inaugural Speech,” Presidential Inaugural Speeches, http://www.juntosociety.com/inaugural/truman.html.

[3] Florman, S.C., The Introspective Engineer, 1st d., New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1996.

[4] National Science Foundation, “Science and Engineering Indietors,” Science and Engineering: Public Attitudes and Public Understanding, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind02/, 2002.

[5] Brannan, R.W., “Conflict Between Professionalism and Political Responsiveness,” Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, Vol. 120, No. 1,1994, pp. 36- 40.

[6] Wiggins, J.H., “Challenge for Engineers, “Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, Vol. 121,No. 3,1995,p. 199.

[7] Parsons, L.B., “Engineering in Context: Engineering in Developing Countries,” Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, Vol. 122, No. 4,1996, pp. 170-176.

[8] Wall, K., “Engineering Profession as a Major Role Player in the New South African Political Order,” Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, Vol. 122, No. 2,1996, pp.73-77.

[9] Mclsaac, G.F., and N.C. Morey, “Engineers’ Role in Sustainable Development: Considering Cultural Dynamics,” Journal’of ‘Professional’Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, Vol. 124, No. 4,1998, pp. 110-119.

[10] McCuen, R.H., “Course on Engineering Leadership,” Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, Vol. 125, No. 3, 1999, pp. 79-82.

[11] Duffield, J.F., and R.H. McCuen, “Ethical Maturity and Successful Leadership,” Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, Vol. 126, No. 2,2000, pp. 79- 82.

[12] Lyons, W.C., “U.S. and International Engineering Education: A Vision of Engineering’s Future,”Journal’of’Professional’Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, VoL 126, No. 4,2000, pp. 152- 155.

[13] Bonasso, S.G., “Engineering, Leadership, and Integral Philosophy,” Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, Vol. 127, No. 1,2001, pp. 17-25.

[14] Guilbeau, E., and V. Pizziconi, “Increasing Student Awareness of Ethical, Social, Legal, and Economic Implications of Technology,”Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 88, No. 1,1999, pp. 35-45.

[15] Downey, G.L., J. Lucena, B. Moskal, R. Parkhurst, T. Bigley, C. Hays, B. Jesiek, L. Kelly, J. Miller, and S. Ruff, “The Globally Competent Engineer: Working Effectively with People Who Define Problems Differently,” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 95, No. 2, 2006\, pp. 107-122.

[16] Drake, M., P. Griffin, R. Kirkman, and J.L. Swann, “Engineering Ethical Curricula: Assessment and Comparisons of Two Approaches,” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 94, No. 2,2005, pp. 223-231.

[17] Loui, M., “Ethics and the Development of Professional Identities of Engineering Students,” Journal of ‘Engineering Education, Vol. 94, No. 4, 2005, pp. 383-390.

[18] Haws, D., “Ethics Instruction in Engineering Education: A (Mini) Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 90, No. 2, 2001, pp. 223-229.

[19] Stephan, K., “A Survey of Ethics-Related Instruction in U.S. Engineering Programs,” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 88, No. 4, 1999, pp. 459-464.

[20] Coyle, E., L. Jamieson, and W. Oakes, “Integrating Engineering Education and Community Service: Themes for the Future of Engineering Education,” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 95, No. 1, 2006, pp. 7-11.

[21] Gosink, J., J. Lucena, and B. Moskal, “Humanitarian Engineering at the Colorado School of Mines: An Example of Multidisciplinary Engineering,” (CD) Proceedings, American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Session 1843, June 2003.

[22] Delplanque, J.P., J. Gosink, and J. Lucena, (CD) Proceedings, American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Session 2171, June 2004.

[23] Skokan, C.K., and J. Gosink, “Gender Participation in Humanitarian versus Traditional Multidisciplinary Senior Design Projects,” (CD) Proceedings, American Society for Engineering Education Conference, Portland, OR, June 2005.

[24] Skokan, C.K., D. Muoz, andJ. Gosink, “Humanitarian Projects in Interdisciplinary Engineering Senior Design,” (CD) Proceedings, International Conference on Engineering Education, Gliwice, Poland, July 2005.

[25] Skokan, C.K., “2005, Senegal-Irrigation and Water Quality Project,” Symposium on Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems, Atlanta, GA, April 2005.

[26] Mitcham, C., J. Lucena, and S. Moon, “Humanitarian Science and Engineering,” in Mitcham, C. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics, MacMillan, 2005.

[27] Bauer, E.H. and J. Lucena, Techno-politics in a Wastewater Project at the Colorado School of Mines for Kathmandu, Nepal: A case Study,” (CD) Proceedings, Engineers for a Sustainable World Conference, Austin, TX, October 2005.

[28] Bauer, E., “The Humanitarian Engineering Program at the Colorado School of Mines,” Poster Presentation, Engineers for a Sustainable World Conference, Austin, TX, October 2005.

[29] Skokan, C., M. Simoes, and J. Crocker, “Designing Humanitarian Engineering Classes,” (CD) Proceedings, 9th International Conference on Engineering Education, Session TlA, San Juan, Puerto Rico, July 2006.

[30] Muoz, D, “Humanitarian Engineering Program at Colorado School of Mines: A Brief Overview,” Poster Presentation, NAE Service Learning Conference, Washington DC, May 2006.

[31] Skokan, C., D. Muftoz, and J. Gosink, “Humanitarian Engineering, Problems and Potential Solutions,” Poster Presentation, National Academy of Engineering, Service Learning Conference, Washington DC, May 2006.

[32] Muoz, D., “Ingenieria Humanitaria (IH) en Colorado School of Mines (CSM),” Poster Presentation, 2006 Congreso Anual de Ingenieria Alcances y tendencias en el Siglo XXIASME-Universidad Simon Bolivar, Caracas, Venezuela, June 2006.

[33] Muoz, D. “Building a Humanitarian Engineering Program,” (CD) Proceedings, 5th Annual ASEE Colloquium on Engineering Education, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, October 9-12,2006.

[34] Shiarella, A., A. McCarthy, and M. Tucker, “Development and Construct Validity of Scores on the Community Service Attitudes Scale,” Educational and Physiological Measurement, Vol. 60, No. 2, 2000, pp. 286-300.

[35] Stommel, M., C. Collins, B. Given, and C.W. Given, “Correlates of Community Service Attitudes Among Family Caregivers,” Journal of Applied Gerontology, Vol. 18, No. 2,1999, pp. 145-161.

[36] Bauer, E.H., B. Moskal, J. Lucena, J. Gosink, and D. Mufioz, “Understanding Student and Faculty Attitudes With Respect to Service Learning: Lessons from the Humanitarian Engineering Project,” (CD) Proceedings, American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition: The Changing Landscape of Engineering and Technology Education in a Global World, Multidisciplinary Engineering Constituent Committee Division, Portland, OR, June 12- 15,2005.

[37] Bauer, E.H., B. Moskal,J. Lucena,J. Gosink, and D. Mufioz, “Understanding Student and Faculty Attitudes With Respect to Service Learning: Lessons from the Humanitarian Engineering Program”, (CD) Proceedings, ASEE/AaeE Global Colloquium on Engineering Education: Globalization of Engineering Education, Sydney, Australia, September 26-30,2005.

[38] Bauer, E.H., B. Moskal, J. Lucena, J. Gosink, and D. Munoz, “Attitudes toward Service Learning in Engineering,” (CD) Proceedings, Frontiers in Education Conference: Pedagogies and Technologies for the Emerging Global Economy, Indianapolis, IN, October 19-22,2005.

[39] Schwanz, S.H., “Normative Influences on Altruism,” Aavances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 10,1977, pp. 221-279.

[40] Schwartz, S.H., and J. Howard, “Helping and Cooperation: A Self-Based Motivational Model,” Cooperation and Helping Behavior: Theories and Research, 1984, pp. 327-352.

E. HEIDI BAUER

Engineering Division

Colorado School of Mines

BARBARA MOSKAL

Mathematical and Computer Sciences

Colorado School of Mines

JOAN GOSINK

Engineering Division

Colorado School of Mines

JUAN LUCENA

Liberal Arts and International Studies

Colorado School of Mines

DAVID MUOZ

Engineering Division

Colorado School of Mines

Authors’ biographies

E. Heidi Bauer was the graduate assistant for the Humanitarian Engineering Program at the Colorado School of Mines from May 2004- May 2006. She recently earned a M.S. degree in the Environmental Science and Engineering Division specializing in Water and Wastewater Treatment. She earned a B.S. degree with honors from the Colorado School of Mines in Engineering with a specialty in Environmental Engineering.

Address: Engineering Division, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO, 80401; telephone: (+ 1) 303.273.3658; e-mail: csm_alum_06@yahoo.com.

Barbara M. Moskal is an associate professor in the Mathematical and Computer Sciences Division at the Colorado School of Mines. She received her Ed.D. in Mathematics Education with a minor in Quantitative Research Methodology and her M.A. in Mathematics from the University of Pittsburgh. Her research interests include student assessment, K-12 outreach, and equity issues. In 2000, she received a New Faculty Fellowship at the Frontiers in Education Conference and in 2006, she received the William Elgin Wickenden Awardvnui colleagues, Barbara Olds and Ronald Miller.

Address: Mathematical and Computer Sciences, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO, 80401; telephone: (+ 1) 303.273.3867; e-mail: bmoskal@mines.edu.

Joan Gosink is an emerita professor and former Director of the Engineering Division at the Colorado School of Mines. Under her direction, the Division received various accolades, including designation as a Program of Excellence from the Colorado Commission on Higher Education. The program also expanded to include Masters and Doctorate degrees and an undergraduate specialty in environmental engineering. Dr. Gosink twice served as a Program Director at NSF.

Address: Engineering Division, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO, 80401; telephone: (+ 1) 303-273-3650; e-mail: jgosink@mines.edu.

Juan Lucena is an associate professor in the Liberal Arts and International Studies Division at the Colorado School of Mines. He researches the global and cultural dimensions of engineering education and practices under a number of NSF-sponsored projects. His book, Defending the Nation: U.S. Policymaking in Science and Engineering Education from Sputnik to the War Against Terrorism, was published in 2005. He also serves as a NAE/Boeing Senior Fellow in Engineering Education.

Address: Liberal Arts and International Studies, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO, 80401; telephone: (+ 1) 303.273.3564; e-mail: jlucena@mines.edu.

David Muftoz is an associate professor in the Engineering Division at the Colorado School of Mines. He earned his Ph.D. and M.S. Mechanical Engineering degrees from Purdue University, and he earned his B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of New Mexico. He spent a sabbatical as a Visiting Professor to Monterrey Tech. (ITESM) in Monterrey, Mexico. Dr. Munoz has taught several thermo-fluid science and design courses. His interests include engineering design for global sustainability.

Address: Engineering Division, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO, 80401; telephone: (+ 1) 303.273.3658; e-mail: dmunoz@mines.edu.

Copyright AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION Apr 2007

(c) 2007 Journal of Engineering Education. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.