Raymond de Callafon

This Work-in-Progress paper introduces an experiential, game-based intervention for teaching engineering ethics to upper-level undergraduates in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering (MAE). Traditional ethics instruction often emphasizes compliance and regulatory frameworks, which may inadequately prepare students for real-world dilemmas characterized by incomplete information, ambiguous trade-offs, and the need for trust among interdisciplinary teams. To address this gap, we developed a role-playing card game grounded in experiential learning theory, socio-technical systems thinking, and moral development frameworks. Students assume roles as Managers or Engineers within fictional companies competing for a client's sponsorship. Managers are briefed on project priorities (e.g., cost, sustainability), while Engineers possess information about available resources. This asymmetrical distribution of knowledge simulates real-world engineering environments and requires students to iteratively negotiate and revise design proposals under ethical and practical constraints. An “Ethics Points” system incentivizes decisions that prioritize stakeholder accountability, and final scoring rewards trustworthiness over profitmaximization. The educational setting includes mixed-methods assessment: post-game surveys to evaluate changes in ethical sensitivity and moral reasoning; qualitative reflection essays; and observational analysis of team dynamics during gameplay. Preliminary results indicate heightened engagement, improved ethical awareness, and stronger collaboration-findings that align with existing literature on the benefits of simulation- and game-based learning in engineering ethics. This intervention aims to humanize STEM instruction by embedding ethical reasoning into collaborative, interactive activities. The findings offer implications for broader integration of trust-centered pedagogies in interdisciplinary engineering courses and professional training contexts.

Conventional wildfire assessment products emphasize regional-scale ignition likelihood and potential spread derived from fuels and weather. While useful for broad planning, they do not directly support boundary-aware, scenario-specific decision-making for localized threats to communities in the Wildland–Urban Interface (WUI). This limitation constrains the ability of fire managers to effectively prioritize mitigation efforts and response strategies for ignition events that may lead to severe local impacts. This paper introduces WUI-BTI—a scenario-based, simulation-driven boundary-threat index for the Wildland–Urban Interface that quantifies consequences conditional on an ignition under standardized meteorology, rather than estimating risk. WUI-BTI evaluates ignition locations—referred to as Fire Amplification Sites (FAS)—based on their potential to compromise the defined boundary of a community. For each ignition location, a high-resolution fire spread simulation is conducted. The resulting fire perimeter dynamics are analyzed to extract three key metrics: (1) the minimum distance of fire approach to the community boundary (Dmin) for non-breaching fires; and for breaching fires, (2) the time required for the fire to reach the boundary (Tp), and (3) the total length of the community boundary affected by the fire (Lc). These raw outputs are mapped through monotone, sigmoid-based transformations to yield a single, interpretable score: breaching fires are scored by the product of an inverse-time urgency term and an extent term, whereas non-breaching fires are scored by proximity alone. The result is a continuous boundary-threat surface that ranks ignition sites by their potential to rapidly and substantially compromise a community boundary. By converting complex simulation outputs into scenario-specific, boundary-aware intelligence, WUI-BTI provides a transparent, quantitative basis for prioritizing fuel treatments, pre-positioning suppression resources, and guiding protective strategies in the WUI for fire managers, land use planners, and emergency response agencies. The framework complements regional hazard layers (e.g., severity classifications) by resolving fine-scale, consequence-focused priorities for specific communities.

An experiential approach to improve learning outcomes in the area of ethics training for mechanical and aerospace engineering upper-class undergraduates has been previously described [1]. Due to the initial positive outcomes and feedback from students, an ethics module comprised of three interactive, experiential exercises introduced into a core-curriculum laboratory class was deployed the following academic year. In this iteration as part of the module, upper-class students from aerospace engineering as well as mechanical engineering were pre-divided into groups of four and asked to select from a curated selection of case studies relevant to their major. They were then asked to create a compelling, three-minute video in which the roles of client, manager, engineer, and any other role deemed relevant, embodied the complexity of making difficult ethical decisions in the selected case study. The assumption in the past had been that students simply needed to learn how to comprehend how stakeholders might perceive a problem from multiple perspectives, and in the communication of these views develop a deeper understanding that would enable them to make sound ethical decisions. While this may be a critical part in teaching ethical decision making, it is clear that another, perhaps more fundamental enabling aspect is in establishing a sense of trust that encouraged deeper reflection and sharing amongst the students which provides the foundation for the subsequent empathetic understanding and communication. Contrary to previous assumptions about the primacy of communication as foundational for the establishment of ethically sound decision-making, this paper discusses the importance of creating an environment of trust wherein leadership in equitable and ethical decision-making can be promoted.