Readings for next week

Hi all,

Just a reminder - everyone should read Noddings Chapter 8 (overview on ethics in a philosophy of education).

In your YouTube groups - one person reads Pfatteicher, one reads Mitcham, and one reads Dorst - all of them speak to ways to think about ethics in a philosophy of engineering education. We focused on ethics as a concrete example of putting ideas into action in the current picture of engineering education. With this in mind - how do ethics fit within the aims and process of education, the nature of engineering knowledge and knowing, tensions and challenges in engineering education, and consequences around who gets to be an engineer?

Readings for November 11 - history of engineering education

The readings for this week trace a path of the history of engineering education from pre-1862 to 1918, 1933, 1955, and 1968 (later we’ll look at more recent reports). Each implicitly or explicitly says something about: (1) the aims of engineering education, (2) the process (curriculum, content, instruction, admissions, licensing, etc.), (3) who should be educated or gets to become an engineer, and (4) what is the nature of engineering (e.g., science, design, math, social, leadership, collaboration, etc.). For the reports, many of these arguments are based in an analysis of the current state (up until that time period) and/or stated recommendations for the future.

Each student will read only one of the following (the list of who reads what is below) – this is a jigsaw activity and is designed such that each YouTube team has explored in depth three of these readings. Each reading group is responsible for “teaching” the rest of the class the key points from that reading. As an FYI – for those of you interested in reading about what was going on in other countries – an overview is provided in the SPEE 1933 report.

With these ideas in mind – for your assigned reading and teaching guides - use your education philosophy lens (e.g., aims and process of education, who should be educated), your epistemology lens (e.g., what is engineering knowledge, knowing), and your boundaries/tensions lenses (e.g., tensions and boundary work, motivations for funding and writing the report, challenges they are wrestling with and ideas to resolve tensions). Note: NOT EVERY READING WILL ADDRESS EACH OF THESE. For the reports – take a few minutes to Google the authors and committee – many of these people are deans of colleges of engineering and / or presidents of what is currently ASEE (in the past, SPEE).


Lorie, Mariana, Cindy:
Reynolds, Terry S. (1992) “The Education of Engineers in America Before the Morrill Act of 1862,” History of Education Quarterly 32( Winter) pp. 459-82. Keep in mind: Like Bix and Slaton – this is historical research that makes a point about engineering education prior to the Morrill Act. What is Reynold’s argument about engineering education up until the Morrill Act (what argument is he challenging)? What does Reynold’s say about pre-Morrill Land Grant aims/process/who should be educated, what is engineering knowledge, and tensions/boundaries?

Ruth, Corey, Tatiana:
Mann, Charles Riborg. 1918. "A Study of Engineering Education." Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, New York. (Preface (227-230), Introduction (231-233), 231-275 (overview of current aims, process, epistemology).

Jeremi, Dan, Jeff:
Mann, Charles Riborg. 1918. "A Study of Engineering Education." Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, New York. (Preface (227-230), Introduction (231-233), 276-312 (tensions / problems),

Nichole, Hadi, Angela:
Mann, Charles Riborg. 1918. "A Study of Engineering Education." Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, New York. (Preface (227-230), Introduction (231-233), 314-340 (recommendations)

Natalie, Beth, Tamecia:
Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education. (1930) "Report of the Investigation of Engineering Education 1923-1929."Pittsburgh, PA. pgs. 251-266 (assessment and recommendations))

Nikitha, Ben, Julia:
Collection 2004. "Journal of Engineering Education Round Table: Reflections on the Grinter Report." Journal of Engineering Education: 69-94. (Reprinted from Journal of Engineering Education, September, 1955 pp. 25-60)

Xingyu, Diana, Tosin:
Goals Committee. 1968. "Goals of Engineering Education: Final Report of the Goals Committee." American Society for Engineering Education, Washington DC. (Parts A, B, C – undergraduate education – 1-14)

Guiding questions for week 9: outsiders and engineering

A couple of fairly simple but still important guiding questions for the readings this week:

1. In each article, who are the "outsiders" and who are the "insiders?"  Think about the actors, as well as the authors and the audiences.
2. In each article, what do the "outsiders" tell us about?  Think about the actors, tools, ideas, boundaries...
3. What does the collection of these articles tell us about "engineering?"

See you on Thursday.  Robin will be waving to us from Australia.  :-)

Belated guiding questions on Noble and Layton

I'm a bit late on getting you these questions, but here they are in any event in case you haven't gotten to your reading yet.

How do Noble and Layton *together* argue how the engineering profession evolved? What were the major signposts each used? What were the different historical steps? How has engineering as a "profession" evolved over time, as described by each?

Gieryn describes the boundary work that goes into the practice of science and technology, and outlines both the characteristics of boundary work itself and gives appetizers to his later chapters of various boundary work cases (which we won't read here, but I recommend you do read at some point, particularly the one on the NSF/NSSF).  How might the tool of "boundaries" be helpful in thinking through Noble and Layton's histories of the engineering profession?

See you Thursday.  We're beavering away on your essays...

Guiding questions: what is engineering?

Next week we're starting to move into the space of asking "what is engineering?"  A couple of guiding questions for you to consider as you read Figuoeira, Jonassen & Strobel, and Koen:

1. What does each argue about the "nature" of engineering? (What would be their answer to the question, "what is engineering?" How about their answer to what engineers know and how they know it?)
2. How does each build their arguments?  What evidence do they use to convince their readers?  What was persuasive (or not) about their arguments to you?  Why?
3. What does each suggest (particularly indirectly) about the aims and process of engineering education?

We look forward to reading your thoughts.

Guiding questions for Week 4: Dall' Alba

Last week we explored the role of epistemology in thinking about the aims and process of education. This week we're going to read a "contemporary" take on education philosophy that critiques an overemphasis on epistemology (theory of knowledge) and an artificial separation of "mind" from "body".

What is the basis of Dall'Alba's critique on current views of education? (what is her argument?)

What alternative framework does she put forth?

What might it look like to design an education based on this alternative framework?

Some chewy questions on Noddings so far...

In Chapter 1 Noddings describes educational philosophies that are still relevant today. What does each have to say about the purpose of education, who is educated (and what they are educated for), how they are educated, and (linking to Chapter 6) what it means to be educated?

How do these philosophies relate to your own engineering education experiences? What does this YouTube video suggest about the purpose or process of education?



In Chapter 6 Noddings describes different ways of knowing (epistemologies).  How do they compare (or what makes them different)?  In what ways are these evident in your synthesis essay (e.g., your theories of knowing engineering)?

Week 1: Palmer and Schon

We're looking forward to this class - and have put together a relatively short assignment to get us ready for the first day of class this Thursday. These are 2 readings by important people in education - people you will most likely read more about as you progress through the program and engage the broader community: Donald Schon and Parker Palmer. We are using some of their ideas as "tools" to help you engage in and make sense of what we hope to accomplish over the term.

Guiding Questions
(1) Schön talks about “tacit” knowledge (things we do that we don’t know we do but that are critical to how we approach and make sense of the world). One way to help you think critically and reflectively about your experiences (both in and out of class) is the idea of reflective practice. What kinds of reflective practices does Schön talk about and are they different? Why does Schön see reflective practice as an attribute of what it means to be a scholar? Take a “reflection-on-action” moment to think about your own story of engineering education – what stands out for you?

(2) Palmer talks about paradox and wholeness. What paradoxes have you experienced? How have you dealt with this in the past to create a sense of “wholeness”? What does Palmer suggest as a way to deal with the “tension” of conflicting paradoxes?

See you in class! And feel free to add additional thoughts on these readings here after class if you didn't get to share them in class and want to get them out there.