I completely agree with Julia about loud voices “we need to change” regarding engineering education. The problem is that this "we need to change" is at least 150 years old . The question did not change in time, but the answers about “how to change” are different for every epoch. Every generation of new scholars has “new” perspectives on how to change….
Engineering as a discipline is not new for academia. But engineering education, with the epistemological emphasis on “how people learn engineering contents”- is still very young and undeveloped discipline. I think that contemporary research in engineering education has focus on identifying “right” boundarie; and it is a result of “youth” of engineering education discipline. Examples of those boundaries might include: “what are concepts in engineering”, or “how engineering education is different from other education methods” and so on. One of the today readings (Creating a Culture for Scholarly and Systematic Innovations in Engineering Education, 2009) said: “Engineering education research differs from general education research in that the emphasis is on student understanding of engineering rather than on educational theory or methodology in general. It requires an in-depth understanding of engineering, learning theory, and pedagogical practice as well as access to engineering students and their learning environments” (p.9).
At the present time many engineering faculty members don’t recognize a problem in modern engineering education. Crossing Jeremi comments about different types of engineering faculty (Jeremi, Nikitha, and I mentioned that in our group discussion today): there is a frequent misunderstanding in terms about what is “engineering faculty member”? Is he/she (1) a person who teaches about particular theoretical concepts? Or he/she is (2) a person who is doing research on “how students learn engineering?”Research-orientated institutions have both cathegories of faculty members. But teaching-orientated institutions of higher education usually recognize by “engineering faculty” the first category of professors: they are people who teach “nuts-and-bolts” of particular engineering discipline.
A couple of thoughts came to my mind about the “Western white male engineer” stereotype: from my international perspective, this character-type belongs specifically to AMERICAN engineering education. In European counties, and in Russia as well, the percentage of women, who is pursuing degree in technical or engineering fields, is significantly higher.
In Russia, for example, female role in society had been significantly changed after the WW2, because of dramatic demographic situation. Russia lost more than 50 million people, the majority of them were males. The lucky guys, who had a chance to come back home alive, were injured and wounded. In this situation, traditional stay-home-with-kids female role undergo big change. Women were strongly encouraged to take traditional male positions and to obtain technical or engineering education. Similar situation was in many European countries after the WW2. The percentage of female students in Russian technical schools/universities raised up to 40-50%. It was a question of National survival to involve women in industry as soon as possible. As a result, a completly distroyed economy/industry was shortly restored by women and teenagers hands (who after the war were forced to work at factories for 12-13 hours, 6 days in the week).
The USA, on the other hand, did not have those dramatic loss of male population; most of the guys came back home after the war. The majority of women, who were involved in industrial activities during the war, also had a chance to come back to traditional home activities after the war. As a result, integration of American women in engineering and technical fields is slower compare to other countries.
Showing posts with label Tatiana. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tatiana. Show all posts
Friday, December 3, 2010
Thursday, November 4, 2010
MIS for Amy Bix, Technical Education at Land-Grant institutions during WW2
Today in class our group (Xin, Jeff, Mariana and I) discussed the influence of WW2 on American Eng. Education. All of us came to agreement that WW2 had enormous impact not only on the development of engineering education, but probably on the whole American economy, higher Education, and research institutions as well. Bix stated that during WW2 engineering education came to the forefront. When the War begun, all engineering education became military orientated. Many universities (which before the War prepared civil engineers) provided on campuses accelerated engineering training for the Military. Usually, expenses for re-education and re-training of civilians to military engineers were covered by the U.S. government. Bix argued, that in 1940 the Congress passed the bill giving nine million dollars to establish new Engineering Defense Training (EDT) program, based in the U.S. Office of Education. EDT mission was “providing short intensive courses on the engineering college level in fields essential to national defense…” (p.109). In general, four month EDT courses prepared “a civil engineer to design airplane, or mechanical engineer became qualified for engine design” (p.110).
Also, Bix described a slow re-evaluation of gender roles in society (and as a result of that – in engineering education), which begun at the same time under the pressure of WW2. “Wartime programs carried an even greater significance in the way they affected women’s access to engineering training” (p.120). Before the War, unwritten rules discouraged women from attempting engineering education, because school traditions tied technical expertise to masculinity. Women who were enrolling in engineering majors were subjects for sarcastic jokes and controversial opinions from faculty and male classmates. During the WW2 the idea of “women studying technical subjects suddenly acquired patriotic value” (p.121). Because of growing manpower crisis, the U.S. Office of Education “wanted to draw women into war training from the beginning” (p.122). Women with degrees in home economics, especially who had curricula’s focus on technology, were very desirable for the engineering field. Bix stated that toward War’s end schools “started to worry about women taking up too much room on campus, as returning veterans tightened up housing” (p.127). In spite of the fact that most the girls who completed wartime engineering training did not make lifetime careers in those fields, “their experience left its mark on American colleges” (p.129). Bix concluded that in ten years after WW2, in spite of public skepticism, women enrolment in engineering programs was increased more than twice: “In 1949 there were 763 female students enrolled in engineering across the U.S.; by 1957, that total had more than doubled to peak at 1783.
Also, Bix described a slow re-evaluation of gender roles in society (and as a result of that – in engineering education), which begun at the same time under the pressure of WW2. “Wartime programs carried an even greater significance in the way they affected women’s access to engineering training” (p.120). Before the War, unwritten rules discouraged women from attempting engineering education, because school traditions tied technical expertise to masculinity. Women who were enrolling in engineering majors were subjects for sarcastic jokes and controversial opinions from faculty and male classmates. During the WW2 the idea of “women studying technical subjects suddenly acquired patriotic value” (p.121). Because of growing manpower crisis, the U.S. Office of Education “wanted to draw women into war training from the beginning” (p.122). Women with degrees in home economics, especially who had curricula’s focus on technology, were very desirable for the engineering field. Bix stated that toward War’s end schools “started to worry about women taking up too much room on campus, as returning veterans tightened up housing” (p.127). In spite of the fact that most the girls who completed wartime engineering training did not make lifetime careers in those fields, “their experience left its mark on American colleges” (p.129). Bix concluded that in ten years after WW2, in spite of public skepticism, women enrolment in engineering programs was increased more than twice: “In 1949 there were 763 female students enrolled in engineering across the U.S.; by 1957, that total had more than doubled to peak at 1783.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Book chapter from Sheppard et al, 2008; week 10
I would like to devote my comments to the book chapter of Sheppard et al, 2008, which I read with pleasure, and which we discussed today in class. The authors described many aspects related to engineering practice and engineering education, and I am going to touch some of them. The chapter begins from identifying what is engineering. A couple of “official” definitions of engineering practice were presented. One of them was made by the U.S. Department of Labor, and second one- by ABET. Department of Labor describes engineering as the application of the “theory and principles of science and mathematics to research and develop economical solutions to technical problems…the link between perceived social needs and commercial applications” p.3. ABET gives similar definition: “Engineering is a decision –making process (often iterative), in which the basic sciences, mathematics, and engineering sciences are applied to convert resources optimally to meet a stated objective”p.3.
Then, authors divided engineering knowledge in three major categories: knowing that (declarative knowledge), knowing how (procedural knowledge) and knowing why (strategic knowledge). “The knowledge that engineers must bring to bear in their work includes knowing how to perform tasks, knowing facts, and knowing when and how to bring appropriate skills and facts to bear on a particular problem” p. 5.
Later, Sheppard et al. discussed the aims and components of engineering education:“although engineering schools aim to prepare students for the profession, they are heavily influenced by academic traditions that do not always support the professional needs” p.2. The authors stated that for at least a century, the U.S. engineering education was strongly influenced by the French model, when curriculum of science, technical subjects and humanities were taught before application.
Three major components of contemporary engineering education are:
•Learning about science (concepts & phenomena) , and accumulation of deep theoretical knowledge;
•Learning engineering concepts (e.g. problem solving, design, analysis), and accumulation of procedural knowledge with practical skills in lab environment,
•Learning ethical and humanity aspects.
The authors noticed that Ethical responsibilities became a feature of engineering recently. The focus on ethical consequences of engineering practice was not critical for the past. But in the present time, ethics and humanity issues can significantly influence on engineering decision-making. “Because engineers’ work directly affects the world, engineers must be able and willing to think about their ethical responsibility for the consequences of their interventions in an increasingly interlinked world environment” (p.8). But from the other side, talking about college level courses devoted to ethics, humanities, and social science, the author presented some kind of contradiction: too often students are forced to choose certain human science courses to satisfy curricula requirements. “The courses and their content remain largely disconnected from the technical education program, and it is largely up to the student to bring them together, if they brought together at all”. I liked the Figure 2.1, where the authors represented components of engineering education. Analysis, lab work, and design activities somehow intersect with each other; but the ethics component is opposite from other components. Ideal model for engineering education is presented on the Figure 21.1, “Networked Components Model”, where all parts/components are bind together and represent an entire model.
Then, authors divided engineering knowledge in three major categories: knowing that (declarative knowledge), knowing how (procedural knowledge) and knowing why (strategic knowledge). “The knowledge that engineers must bring to bear in their work includes knowing how to perform tasks, knowing facts, and knowing when and how to bring appropriate skills and facts to bear on a particular problem” p. 5.
Later, Sheppard et al. discussed the aims and components of engineering education:“although engineering schools aim to prepare students for the profession, they are heavily influenced by academic traditions that do not always support the professional needs” p.2. The authors stated that for at least a century, the U.S. engineering education was strongly influenced by the French model, when curriculum of science, technical subjects and humanities were taught before application.
Three major components of contemporary engineering education are:
•Learning about science (concepts & phenomena) , and accumulation of deep theoretical knowledge;
•Learning engineering concepts (e.g. problem solving, design, analysis), and accumulation of procedural knowledge with practical skills in lab environment,
•Learning ethical and humanity aspects.
The authors noticed that Ethical responsibilities became a feature of engineering recently. The focus on ethical consequences of engineering practice was not critical for the past. But in the present time, ethics and humanity issues can significantly influence on engineering decision-making. “Because engineers’ work directly affects the world, engineers must be able and willing to think about their ethical responsibility for the consequences of their interventions in an increasingly interlinked world environment” (p.8). But from the other side, talking about college level courses devoted to ethics, humanities, and social science, the author presented some kind of contradiction: too often students are forced to choose certain human science courses to satisfy curricula requirements. “The courses and their content remain largely disconnected from the technical education program, and it is largely up to the student to bring them together, if they brought together at all”. I liked the Figure 2.1, where the authors represented components of engineering education. Analysis, lab work, and design activities somehow intersect with each other; but the ethics component is opposite from other components. Ideal model for engineering education is presented on the Figure 21.1, “Networked Components Model”, where all parts/components are bind together and represent an entire model.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Week 9, Reflection on readings
Svarovsky & Shaffer (2006) argued that the main purpose of learning environment in engineering design courses is to “allow novice professionals (students) to be engaged in realistic, messy and ill-structured problems under the supervision of more experienced mentors (instructors)”. The aim is to help novices learn how to reflect-in-action, answering question “what if”, which can arise as a result of various constraints. Svarovsky & Shaffer described an ethnographic study of Biomedical Engineering design course. The main goal of this study was to “examine two activities: the weekly design meeting and the student design notebook. The purpose was to closely evaluate the best practices in order to better understand why and how these participant structures are so effective”(p.1).
Fortsythe (2001) discusses the nature of knowledge and the idea of artificial intelligence. Opinions of engineers about “what is and what is not knowledge and expertise” were compared to opinions of social scientists. The author argued that between those two categories of professionals there is a big difference in thinking, analyzing , and problem-solving approaches. For example, on the page 52, Fortsythe states that “knowledge engineers seem to conceive of reasoning as a matter of following formal rules. In contrast, social scientists – especially anthropologists – tend to think of it in the terms of meaning and to note that the logic by which people reason may differ according to social and cultural context”. The author noticed that the cultural context can significantly influence on perception and evaluation of knowledge: “many engineers are white and middle class, Western men; most designed “experts” come from the same background. The knowledge in expert systems inevitably reflects the interests and perspectives of these individuals. It is much less likely to represent the interests and perspectives of individuals from other backgrounds in our increasingly diverse society” (p.58).
Latour & Woolgar (1986) described an observation of the science lab by a newcomer anthropologist. The authors discussed the differences in perception of the same environment by scientists and anthropologist. For example, a newcomer anthropologist was surprised that “a vast body of literature emanates from within laboratory. How is it that the costly apparatus, animals chemicals and activities of the bench space combine to produce a written documents, and why are these documents so highly valued by participants” ?(p.48)
After reading Forsythe (2001) and Latour & Woolgar (1986), I thought that these readings completely fit in the constructivist theory, which states that humans generate knowledge and meaning from their previous experiences. The same concept might be recognized differently by people who have a core focus in their education on scientific fundamental knowledge, comparing to people, which education is more orientated to engineering, or for example, social sciences (like anthropology). In short, professionals from different fields might perceive the same task, concept or phenomenon in different ways.
It is time to go to class,
See all of you then………
Fortsythe (2001) discusses the nature of knowledge and the idea of artificial intelligence. Opinions of engineers about “what is and what is not knowledge and expertise” were compared to opinions of social scientists. The author argued that between those two categories of professionals there is a big difference in thinking, analyzing , and problem-solving approaches. For example, on the page 52, Fortsythe states that “knowledge engineers seem to conceive of reasoning as a matter of following formal rules. In contrast, social scientists – especially anthropologists – tend to think of it in the terms of meaning and to note that the logic by which people reason may differ according to social and cultural context”. The author noticed that the cultural context can significantly influence on perception and evaluation of knowledge: “many engineers are white and middle class, Western men; most designed “experts” come from the same background. The knowledge in expert systems inevitably reflects the interests and perspectives of these individuals. It is much less likely to represent the interests and perspectives of individuals from other backgrounds in our increasingly diverse society” (p.58).
Latour & Woolgar (1986) described an observation of the science lab by a newcomer anthropologist. The authors discussed the differences in perception of the same environment by scientists and anthropologist. For example, a newcomer anthropologist was surprised that “a vast body of literature emanates from within laboratory. How is it that the costly apparatus, animals chemicals and activities of the bench space combine to produce a written documents, and why are these documents so highly valued by participants” ?(p.48)
After reading Forsythe (2001) and Latour & Woolgar (1986), I thought that these readings completely fit in the constructivist theory, which states that humans generate knowledge and meaning from their previous experiences. The same concept might be recognized differently by people who have a core focus in their education on scientific fundamental knowledge, comparing to people, which education is more orientated to engineering, or for example, social sciences (like anthropology). In short, professionals from different fields might perceive the same task, concept or phenomenon in different ways.
It is time to go to class,
See all of you then………
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Week 8, reflections on readings. History of Eng.Ed.
After the reading of Seely’s article I see some kind of paradox in the development of Engineering Education as a discipline. May be it is just my impression, but I still would like to share that.
1. People always were dissatisfied with the quality of Engineering Education and always complained that it does not correspond with “the real world” needs.
2. In past , Engineering Education was orientated towards development of practical skills with minimal focus on science and fundamental theoretical knowledge. Later (including present time), people complain that Eng. Ed. is too scientifically directed and does not provide appropriate practical skills.
3. Since the WW2, and up till now, the Government money (and the fights between schools to get this funding) always was a significant factor, which influenced on the development of Engineering Education.
In the second article (for this week) Dorst tried: (1) to identify what is design and (2) to establish the methodology of this process. He argues that the very first attempts to find out how a problem-solver makes decisions came from 1960-1970, when the idea of artificial intelligence was very popular. Dorst argued with Simon’s theory about the boundaries between well-defined and ill defined problems and their roles in problem-solving process. It was interesting article with many different perspectives on design, but in general, the author concluded that design process is still unknown, and many factors may influence on designer’s decisions: “The design is a revolution of paradoxes between discourses in a design situation” (p.17).
This is not too long posting, see you all in class.
1. People always were dissatisfied with the quality of Engineering Education and always complained that it does not correspond with “the real world” needs.
2. In past , Engineering Education was orientated towards development of practical skills with minimal focus on science and fundamental theoretical knowledge. Later (including present time), people complain that Eng. Ed. is too scientifically directed and does not provide appropriate practical skills.
3. Since the WW2, and up till now, the Government money (and the fights between schools to get this funding) always was a significant factor, which influenced on the development of Engineering Education.
In the second article (for this week) Dorst tried: (1) to identify what is design and (2) to establish the methodology of this process. He argues that the very first attempts to find out how a problem-solver makes decisions came from 1960-1970, when the idea of artificial intelligence was very popular. Dorst argued with Simon’s theory about the boundaries between well-defined and ill defined problems and their roles in problem-solving process. It was interesting article with many different perspectives on design, but in general, the author concluded that design process is still unknown, and many factors may influence on designer’s decisions: “The design is a revolution of paradoxes between discourses in a design situation” (p.17).
This is not too long posting, see you all in class.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Reflection on Charles Bonwell workshop about active learning strategies
Last week on September 30th a few people from our class (including myself) attended the workshop of Charles Bowell PhD, who is a National guru in active learning. There were about 70-80 people in the room. This workshop was the one of the best workshops I ever saw. The event was from 9am – noon, it is the reason why I was late for the half of the class. But I think it is a good idea to share some thought with the class. The author spoke about pros and cons of active learning strategies, which are an integral part of contemporary higher education.
Before this workshop I had some opinion about active learning strategies. I think the term “active learning” is not always appropriate. As a contrast to “active learning” many scholars called classical lectures as a “passive learning” or “passive listening”. First, I don’t understand how the learning can be “passive”. The method when an instructor asks students to work in groups, including different activities, might be effective enough, but I am against of “attacks” towards the lecture method. My impression is that there is a new paradigm in American higher education, which states that: “the active learning is better than lecture”. This fashionable conception is pushed to be employed by schools and many instructors are resistant to change. A range of researchers is trying to prove that “active learning is more effective”. But on the other hand, my question is: why the lectures are not effective anymore?
During the lecture, there is a direct transformation of information from the professor to the student. The main idea of this process (lecture) is: “do this, as I told you because ……it works”. I am making an analogy between the direct transformation of knowledge during the lecture and the relationship of master-pupil. When the master shows to the pupil how to perform the task, he presents to the pupil his knowledge/information and asks to accept it because the master is more experienced and has an authority.
As a contrast of lectures, working in groups, when the instructor employs the active learning techniques, first, students often asked to “guess” , and to learn through the guessing. It looks like: “I (the teacher) won’t tell you what is the first Newton law , you tell me first, or guess…and after you guess…I finally may explain you how the Newton law works… but better if you read this in the book, because I believe that you will learn better through the readings ……because I am the fan of active learning”. It is chaos.
How about (this usually occurs in “classical lecture”) : explain to students what the Newton law is and be sure they heard you and understood you.If a student wants to learn- he will learn, it does not matter what method is used by the instructor. But if the student does not have motivation to learn, nothing will help, even the “active learning” techniques.
My comments might give the wrong impression that I am against of active learning, but it is not true. I sincerely believe that those techniques (including work in groups and active participation in discussions) are extremely important. But the teaching methods and techniques have to be appropriate to the particular situation. If the class size is fewer than 50 people- the group work might be very effective. But in big class (e.g.150 people) when an instructor has to present fundamental theoretical knowledge (in science), working in groups will create extra noise, distraction and frustrations between students. Students won’t be able to get appropriate feedback from the teacher. In this situation, the lecture is probably the best method to transform knowledge to students. Another important point is - cultural backgrounds of students. In many countries (including my homeland), an instructor is still considered as an authority , it is very disrespectful to interrupt him/her during the lecture with “opinions”. If the student has a question, he should ask the teacher after the class or during the office hours.
During the Charles Bowell’s workshop (he is practicing active learning for years) I did not see this separation between “active” and “passive” learning, his teaching method was a very organized synthesis of both techniques: lecture and group work.
Further, I decided to summarize some material, which was presented in the workshop’s handout.
The major characteristics those are associated with the active learning:
1.Students are involved in more than passive listening;
2.Students are engaged in activities (e.g. reading, discussing, writing);
3.There is less emphasis placed on information transmission and greater emphasis placed on developing student skills;
4.There is greater emphasis placed on the exploration of attitudes and values;
5.Student motivation is increased (especially for adult learners);
6.Students can receive immediate feedback from their instructor;
7.Students are involved in higher order thinking (such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation).
The barriers, which prevent faculty from using active learning strategies:
1.You can not cover as much course content in the time available;
2.Devising active learning strategies takes too much pre-class preparation;
3.Large class sizes prevent implementation of active learning strategies;
4.Most instructor think of themselves as being good lectures;
5.There is a lack of materials or equipment needed to support active learning approaches;
6.Students resist non-lecture approaches;
7.The fact that using active learning strategies involves risk.
I guess it is enough for now, I can write about active learning more and more, but it is time to go to class……(before that I have to wake up kids and to drop them to babysitter)……See all of you in class………
Before this workshop I had some opinion about active learning strategies. I think the term “active learning” is not always appropriate. As a contrast to “active learning” many scholars called classical lectures as a “passive learning” or “passive listening”. First, I don’t understand how the learning can be “passive”. The method when an instructor asks students to work in groups, including different activities, might be effective enough, but I am against of “attacks” towards the lecture method. My impression is that there is a new paradigm in American higher education, which states that: “the active learning is better than lecture”. This fashionable conception is pushed to be employed by schools and many instructors are resistant to change. A range of researchers is trying to prove that “active learning is more effective”. But on the other hand, my question is: why the lectures are not effective anymore?
During the lecture, there is a direct transformation of information from the professor to the student. The main idea of this process (lecture) is: “do this, as I told you because ……it works”. I am making an analogy between the direct transformation of knowledge during the lecture and the relationship of master-pupil. When the master shows to the pupil how to perform the task, he presents to the pupil his knowledge/information and asks to accept it because the master is more experienced and has an authority.
As a contrast of lectures, working in groups, when the instructor employs the active learning techniques, first, students often asked to “guess” , and to learn through the guessing. It looks like: “I (the teacher) won’t tell you what is the first Newton law , you tell me first, or guess…and after you guess…I finally may explain you how the Newton law works… but better if you read this in the book, because I believe that you will learn better through the readings ……because I am the fan of active learning”. It is chaos.
How about (this usually occurs in “classical lecture”) : explain to students what the Newton law is and be sure they heard you and understood you.If a student wants to learn- he will learn, it does not matter what method is used by the instructor. But if the student does not have motivation to learn, nothing will help, even the “active learning” techniques.
My comments might give the wrong impression that I am against of active learning, but it is not true. I sincerely believe that those techniques (including work in groups and active participation in discussions) are extremely important. But the teaching methods and techniques have to be appropriate to the particular situation. If the class size is fewer than 50 people- the group work might be very effective. But in big class (e.g.150 people) when an instructor has to present fundamental theoretical knowledge (in science), working in groups will create extra noise, distraction and frustrations between students. Students won’t be able to get appropriate feedback from the teacher. In this situation, the lecture is probably the best method to transform knowledge to students. Another important point is - cultural backgrounds of students. In many countries (including my homeland), an instructor is still considered as an authority , it is very disrespectful to interrupt him/her during the lecture with “opinions”. If the student has a question, he should ask the teacher after the class or during the office hours.
During the Charles Bowell’s workshop (he is practicing active learning for years) I did not see this separation between “active” and “passive” learning, his teaching method was a very organized synthesis of both techniques: lecture and group work.
Further, I decided to summarize some material, which was presented in the workshop’s handout.
The major characteristics those are associated with the active learning:
1.Students are involved in more than passive listening;
2.Students are engaged in activities (e.g. reading, discussing, writing);
3.There is less emphasis placed on information transmission and greater emphasis placed on developing student skills;
4.There is greater emphasis placed on the exploration of attitudes and values;
5.Student motivation is increased (especially for adult learners);
6.Students can receive immediate feedback from their instructor;
7.Students are involved in higher order thinking (such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation).
The barriers, which prevent faculty from using active learning strategies:
1.You can not cover as much course content in the time available;
2.Devising active learning strategies takes too much pre-class preparation;
3.Large class sizes prevent implementation of active learning strategies;
4.Most instructor think of themselves as being good lectures;
5.There is a lack of materials or equipment needed to support active learning approaches;
6.Students resist non-lecture approaches;
7.The fact that using active learning strategies involves risk.
I guess it is enough for now, I can write about active learning more and more, but it is time to go to class……(before that I have to wake up kids and to drop them to babysitter)……See all of you in class………
Thursday, September 16, 2010
about Dall’Alba article
In general, if I understood correctly, Dall’Alba talks about transition & transformation from school to professional level. She reconsidered the process of professional education not just as a collection of “right” knowledge, but as a process of “becoming” a professional. It takes time for a new college graduate to adapt a new culture and an organizational environment where new graduates are going to work. The author discusses this transformation from a “school-boy/girl” to a professional from epistemological and ontological perspective. She said that we need more than knowledge in particular field (gained in school), we need skills –how to become a professional.
Dall’Alba names a few features, which explain when aspiring professionals (after school) become a practicing professionals: “The features include: continuity over time with change in ways of being professionals; possibilities in the ways we can be with constraints on those possibilities; openness in taking up possibilities with resistance to doing so; and
individuals who are becoming professionals with others involved in that process” (p.38).
This article brought to my mind some thoughts about differences between features of novices and experts. It takes time for a novice to become an expert, so, in the same way, talking about Dall’Alba article, it takes time to transform and be accepted by professionals. This transformation is not always easy, and to say the true - it is hard time for many graduates.
Last Spring 2010 semester I took a S. Brophy’s class here at ENE department. He gave as a very interesting article (Jonassen et al., 2006) about attitudes of expert/professional engineers towards their new colleagues (novices after graduation). I think that Dall’Alba is trying to describe the same problem but from the different perspective. Jonassen’s study included more than 100 participants, which were engineers with different background and working experience. The main purpose of this study was to discover how and why the problem-solving in classrooms is different compare to the problem-solving in the real workplace. The problem is that all problems that are solved in the class are well-defined. Students are expected to present the only one “right” decision of the problem. On the other hand, all tasks in the real workplace usually are ill-defined; there is not a “right” decision; for any particular situation many equivalent choices can co-exist. On the other hand - skilled engineers usually refer to the previous experience in problem-solving. But novices –they don’t have this “previous experience” yet. Theoretical and conceptual knowledge are important, but not dominant or prevailing. Often engineers are involved in absolutely-not-engineering activities, like: how to stay inside of the budget, or “how to keep the client happy”, and how to earn money on the project. Many engineers noticed that new graduates have to work 1- 3 years to become “real” engineers.
I had a similar experience in the past. After my MS graduation in Russia (almost fifteen years ago) I worked as an engineer-technologist on the factory, which produced microchips. My first year was very frustrating, I felt like my college knowledge were not connected to the real life and workplace. At the first week of my employment a couple of “old” engineers took me on the floor and showed me equipment and machines, which produced microchips. I had no idea what those engineers are talking about. I felt like I am a newborn, and as a result of my “newborness” some jokes about my “professionalism” were produced by the ‘old’ engineers. (to say the true- it was very unpleasant). It took almost two years to figure out what I have to do and what I was responsible for. Now I understand why it was so difficult: because my college experience to solve well- defined problems was insufficient for ill-defined tasks in the real workplace.
So, for me, the main idea of Dall’Alba article is: professional education has problems and we need to do something about that because the transition from a school to a real working place is not easy for many graduates.
I hope it is enough for today, see all of you in class…………
References:
Jonassen, D.H., Strobel, J. & Lee, C.B. (2006). Everyday Problem Solving in Engineering: Lessons for Engineering Educators. Journal of Engineering Education; Vol. 95 (2) ProQuest Education Journals.
Dall’Alba names a few features, which explain when aspiring professionals (after school) become a practicing professionals: “The features include: continuity over time with change in ways of being professionals; possibilities in the ways we can be with constraints on those possibilities; openness in taking up possibilities with resistance to doing so; and
individuals who are becoming professionals with others involved in that process” (p.38).
This article brought to my mind some thoughts about differences between features of novices and experts. It takes time for a novice to become an expert, so, in the same way, talking about Dall’Alba article, it takes time to transform and be accepted by professionals. This transformation is not always easy, and to say the true - it is hard time for many graduates.
Last Spring 2010 semester I took a S. Brophy’s class here at ENE department. He gave as a very interesting article (Jonassen et al., 2006) about attitudes of expert/professional engineers towards their new colleagues (novices after graduation). I think that Dall’Alba is trying to describe the same problem but from the different perspective. Jonassen’s study included more than 100 participants, which were engineers with different background and working experience. The main purpose of this study was to discover how and why the problem-solving in classrooms is different compare to the problem-solving in the real workplace. The problem is that all problems that are solved in the class are well-defined. Students are expected to present the only one “right” decision of the problem. On the other hand, all tasks in the real workplace usually are ill-defined; there is not a “right” decision; for any particular situation many equivalent choices can co-exist. On the other hand - skilled engineers usually refer to the previous experience in problem-solving. But novices –they don’t have this “previous experience” yet. Theoretical and conceptual knowledge are important, but not dominant or prevailing. Often engineers are involved in absolutely-not-engineering activities, like: how to stay inside of the budget, or “how to keep the client happy”, and how to earn money on the project. Many engineers noticed that new graduates have to work 1- 3 years to become “real” engineers.
I had a similar experience in the past. After my MS graduation in Russia (almost fifteen years ago) I worked as an engineer-technologist on the factory, which produced microchips. My first year was very frustrating, I felt like my college knowledge were not connected to the real life and workplace. At the first week of my employment a couple of “old” engineers took me on the floor and showed me equipment and machines, which produced microchips. I had no idea what those engineers are talking about. I felt like I am a newborn, and as a result of my “newborness” some jokes about my “professionalism” were produced by the ‘old’ engineers. (to say the true- it was very unpleasant). It took almost two years to figure out what I have to do and what I was responsible for. Now I understand why it was so difficult: because my college experience to solve well- defined problems was insufficient for ill-defined tasks in the real workplace.
So, for me, the main idea of Dall’Alba article is: professional education has problems and we need to do something about that because the transition from a school to a real working place is not easy for many graduates.
I hope it is enough for today, see all of you in class…………
References:
Jonassen, D.H., Strobel, J. & Lee, C.B. (2006). Everyday Problem Solving in Engineering: Lessons for Engineering Educators. Journal of Engineering Education; Vol. 95 (2) ProQuest Education Journals.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
It is my first posting in this semester; I finally understood what we should do with our blog, I read other people statements and decided that it is a time for me to present my “reflection thoughts”. First of all, I would like to give a BIG complement to all of our class participants about their postings: GUYS, ALL OF YOU ARE SO SMART!!!!!!! SO MANY INTELEGENT PEOPLE IN ONE CLASSROOM!!!!!!!!
We read already 7 chapters of the Noddings’ book. So many philosophical schools and trends were described. My common impression about these readings (as on physicist said): WE CANNOT IMAGING A FIVE-DIMENSIONAL CUBE BY OUR THREE-DIMENSIONAL BRAIN. All those philosophers and philosophical schools fight with each other in time and space about what is the true, but the consensus on “what is the true” and what is “best” is not made yet and never will be made.
I would like to touch the chapter 6, where Noddings discuses Epistemology and Education. Piaget and Kuhn - are the most familiar to me, because I already overviewed their work in my dissertational literature review. All another names like Dewey, Pestalozzi or Popper are completely new to me.
From what I read about Dewey from this book – I don’t like him, and I don’t like his ideas. But maybe I just do not know enough about his work.
I agreed with Piaget’s approach that it is impossible to know what is “knowledge” without knowing who “knower” is. His theory has had an enormous impact on the educational psychology of the twentieth century. Montfort (2007) said:
"Piaget described learning as a developmental process in which people progress through standard stages of increasing understanding in order to internalize knowledge. Piaget identified six stages of cognitive development that he believed to be universal when learning. Although new information is gained throughout the stages, each stage is defined by a particular perspective and method of obtaining and organizing information. At each stage a person gains a broader, more thorough and more flexible understanding. He theorized that a person’s knowledge is organized into categories. When people encounter new information they must either fit it into an existing category, or change the organization of their categories to fit the new knowledge. Piaget found that people were more likely to change new information to fit existing categories than to change or add categories"(p.3).
As about Kuhn’s book- it had a big impact on philosophy of science in 20th century. To say a true, before I finally understood what he wants to say , I read this book almost three times. For the first time (I read that in English a year ago)- I understood almost nothing, it was like mumbling- jumbling about what is “the true”. For the second time- I found his book in Russian (my native language), but it was even worse. After I read a few book’s reviews on Kuhn theory, I finally understand how important his work was.
In his book, Kuhn argued that science did not progress via a linear accumulation of new knowledge but underwent periodic revolutions, also called “paradigm shifts”. He identified three main stages, which allowed any scientific revolution to be possible: (1) The period of Normal Science – when every new discovery could be explained by the ruling paradigm; (2) Crisis in science – the appearance of anomalies and inexplicable facts; (3) Science revolution –a creation of new paradigm, or in other words, a macro-conceptual change in the scientific environment.
After a scientific revolution: “Familiar objects are seen in a different light and joined by unfamiliar ones as well. Scientists see the world of their research-engagement differently. They are responding to a different world. What people see depends both on what they look at and on what their previous visual-conceptual experience has taught them to see” (Pajares, F., n.d.). A good illustration of this idea is presented on the Figure 1. Recognizing a duck or rabbit depends on what a person wants to see.
Figure 1. Duck-Rabbit Illusion (Jastrow, 1899)
At the present time this book is considered as one of the classic books about history and evolution of science. Kuhn’s work had an enormous impact on modern philosophy. There was a time when this book was the most cited in scientific literature. For those who would like to read it but have no time Frank Pajares (n.d.) wrote an excellent review where he analyzed chapter by chapter Kuhn’s book.
My impression after reading this book was that the author represents science as a living organism. He explains how science develops and what development stages science has to follow. These development stages of science are related to the development of all human civilization and the history of human society.
I guess it is enough for now, see all of you in class………….
References
Jastrow, J. (1899). The mind’s eye. Popular Science Monthly, 54, 299-312. Retrieved from: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Duck-Rabbit_illusion.jpg
Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The University of Chicago Press, The second edition.
Montfort,D. (2007) An investigation of students’ conceptual understanding in related sophomore to graduate-level engineering and mechanics courses. MS Thesis. Washington State University.
Pajares, F. (n.d.) Outline and Study Guide for “The structure of scientific revolution” Retrieved from: http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhn.html
We read already 7 chapters of the Noddings’ book. So many philosophical schools and trends were described. My common impression about these readings (as on physicist said): WE CANNOT IMAGING A FIVE-DIMENSIONAL CUBE BY OUR THREE-DIMENSIONAL BRAIN. All those philosophers and philosophical schools fight with each other in time and space about what is the true, but the consensus on “what is the true” and what is “best” is not made yet and never will be made.
I would like to touch the chapter 6, where Noddings discuses Epistemology and Education. Piaget and Kuhn - are the most familiar to me, because I already overviewed their work in my dissertational literature review. All another names like Dewey, Pestalozzi or Popper are completely new to me.
From what I read about Dewey from this book – I don’t like him, and I don’t like his ideas. But maybe I just do not know enough about his work.
I agreed with Piaget’s approach that it is impossible to know what is “knowledge” without knowing who “knower” is. His theory has had an enormous impact on the educational psychology of the twentieth century. Montfort (2007) said:
"Piaget described learning as a developmental process in which people progress through standard stages of increasing understanding in order to internalize knowledge. Piaget identified six stages of cognitive development that he believed to be universal when learning. Although new information is gained throughout the stages, each stage is defined by a particular perspective and method of obtaining and organizing information. At each stage a person gains a broader, more thorough and more flexible understanding. He theorized that a person’s knowledge is organized into categories. When people encounter new information they must either fit it into an existing category, or change the organization of their categories to fit the new knowledge. Piaget found that people were more likely to change new information to fit existing categories than to change or add categories"(p.3).
As about Kuhn’s book- it had a big impact on philosophy of science in 20th century. To say a true, before I finally understood what he wants to say , I read this book almost three times. For the first time (I read that in English a year ago)- I understood almost nothing, it was like mumbling- jumbling about what is “the true”. For the second time- I found his book in Russian (my native language), but it was even worse. After I read a few book’s reviews on Kuhn theory, I finally understand how important his work was.
In his book, Kuhn argued that science did not progress via a linear accumulation of new knowledge but underwent periodic revolutions, also called “paradigm shifts”. He identified three main stages, which allowed any scientific revolution to be possible: (1) The period of Normal Science – when every new discovery could be explained by the ruling paradigm; (2) Crisis in science – the appearance of anomalies and inexplicable facts; (3) Science revolution –a creation of new paradigm, or in other words, a macro-conceptual change in the scientific environment.
After a scientific revolution: “Familiar objects are seen in a different light and joined by unfamiliar ones as well. Scientists see the world of their research-engagement differently. They are responding to a different world. What people see depends both on what they look at and on what their previous visual-conceptual experience has taught them to see” (Pajares, F., n.d.). A good illustration of this idea is presented on the Figure 1. Recognizing a duck or rabbit depends on what a person wants to see.
Figure 1. Duck-Rabbit Illusion (Jastrow, 1899)
At the present time this book is considered as one of the classic books about history and evolution of science. Kuhn’s work had an enormous impact on modern philosophy. There was a time when this book was the most cited in scientific literature. For those who would like to read it but have no time Frank Pajares (n.d.) wrote an excellent review where he analyzed chapter by chapter Kuhn’s book.
My impression after reading this book was that the author represents science as a living organism. He explains how science develops and what development stages science has to follow. These development stages of science are related to the development of all human civilization and the history of human society.
I guess it is enough for now, see all of you in class………….
References
Jastrow, J. (1899). The mind’s eye. Popular Science Monthly, 54, 299-312. Retrieved from: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Duck-Rabbit_illusion.jpg
Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The University of Chicago Press, The second edition.
Montfort,D. (2007) An investigation of students’ conceptual understanding in related sophomore to graduate-level engineering and mechanics courses. MS Thesis. Washington State University.
Pajares, F. (n.d.) Outline and Study Guide for “The structure of scientific revolution” Retrieved from: http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhn.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)