Workshop Assessment

1=strongly disagree

2=disagree

3=neither agree nor disagree

4=agree

5=strongly agree

Identify stakeholders in a complex decisions pertaining to science and technology.

1

2

3

4

5

Understand how the perspectives of different stakeholders are informed and communicated.

1

2

3

4

5

Name indirect obligations and responsibilities associated with designing, making, and marketing products.

1

2

3

4

5

Appreciate the human factors, conflicts of interest, struggles, and tradeoffs in a participatory governance scenario pertaining to science and technology.

1

2

3

4

5

Comprehend the role of governance in how science and engineering are applied in the world.

1

2

3

4

5

1=strongly disagree

2=disagree

3=neither agree nor disagree

4=agree

5=strongly agree

Identify value-based decisions made in the practice of evaluating emerging technologies around the product life cycle.

1

2

3

4

5

Explain some ethical principles and frameworks applicable to these value-based decisions.

1

2

3

4

5

List ethical dilemmas involved in public communications about science and technology.

1

2

3

4

5

Understand the inherent limits of quantitative, technical methods of assessment in incorporating values.

1

2

3

4

5

Relate values to the way practice, business, and policy decisions about science and technology should be made.

1

2

3

4

5

Articulate an understanding of a scientist or engineer’s professional rights and responsibilities relative to those of consumers and other stakeholders.

1

2

3

4

5

Operate professionally as a scientist or engineer even in ‘grey areas’ of practice where there is no possibility of a single correct answer.

1

2

3

4

5

Learning objective

[X] for most addressed (select up to 3)

Identify stakeholders in a complex decisions pertaining to science and technology.

Understand how the perspectives of different stakeholders are informed and communicated.

Name indirect obligations and responsibilities associated with designing, making, and marketing products.

Appreciate the human factors, conflicts of interest, struggles, and tradeoffs in a participatory governance scenario pertaining to science and technology.

Comprehend the role of governance in how science and engineering are applied in the world.

Identify value-based decisions made in the practice of evaluating emerging technologies around the product life cycle.

Explain some ethical principles and frameworks applicable to these value-based decisions.

List ethical dilemmas involved in public communications about science and technology.

Understand the inherent limits of quantitative, technical methods of assessment in incorporating values.

Relate values to the way practice, business, and policy decisions about science and technology should be made.

Articulate an understanding of a scientist or engineer’s professional rights and responsibilities relative to those of consumers and other stakeholders.

Operate professionally as a scientist or engineer even in ‘grey areas’ of practice where there is no possibility of a single correct answer.

1=strongly disagree

2=disagree

3=neither agree nor disagree

4=agree

5=strongly agree

This experience was a good use of my time.

1

2

3

4

5

This experience made me more prepared for ‘real world’ practice of science or engineering.

1

2

3

4

5

This experience was a challenge for me.

1

2

3

4

5

I will probably remember this experience for a long time.

1

2

3

4

5

I will probably recall this experience when I engage with stakeholders in the future.

1

2

3

4

5

This experience makes me more aware of my own values as they pertain to science and engineering applications.

1

2

3

4

5

This experience makes me more aware of the values of other people as they pertain to science and engineering applications.

1

2

3

4

5

I would recommend this experience to other STEM graduate students.

1

2

3

4

5

1=highly dissatisfied

2=dissatisfied

3=neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

4=satisfied

5=highly satisfied

Quality of readings

1

2

3

4

5

Appropriateness of readings for character

1

2

3

4

5

Quality of discussion

1

2

3

4

5

Length of discussion

1

2

3

4

5

The level of detail in the hypothetical case

1

2

3

4

5

The realism of the hypothetical case

1

2

3

4

5

The workshop leader’s performance

1

2

3

4

5

The way I performed in this situation

1

2

3

4

5

The way the other students performed in this situation

1

2

3

4

5