The Box and the Wheel

After reading a section of the Wickendon report for today and thinking about the development of engineering in the United States, I'm feeling like there is a box. The article I read was written in the thirties and a comparison of engineering education in the U.S. to European engineering education. Stepping back to lay out my observation, whenever there is a new institution it is often the response to a catalyst either in a positive or negative way. For instance, if we agree with something, we tend to duplicate it. If we do not agree with something, we respond in opposition to it in some manner that we can figure out in a way we can successfully distinguish ourselves as not that (boundaries). In the end, we mimic the model of institution (somebody's) when we create new ones even when we do not aggressively intend to because that is the model that we have. (tension)

So when we needed engineering in the U.S., we tried to take a wheel from the German and French in the way that was good for the U.S. This report describes how that wheel doesn't fit, and why the author thinks it doesn't fit. As I was reading I had the following questions:

1. Is the response to primary and second education to educate toward function in society a reaction to diversity in the U.S. that is less of a concern/factor in France and Germany, or have those countries responded differently in a way the U.S. might have tried to imitate in the way it imitated other things? These are things to consider as we still have a diversity problem. Not that diversity is a problem, but how we might respond to it being the problem.
   
2. There seemed to be an observation that because there was no national plan and organization, engineering education responded in an unorganized and less well-analyzed common manner that produced some great solutions and additional problems. That is the way our system works as far the priority of freedom of academic expression...or that decentralization of education causes as much chaos as it does autonomy. Since we do not plan on changing (centralizing) K-12 education, how can we knit these together?
   
3. Some of the blame for crimes was placed at the feet of industry and market, but there is a large crime placed at the feet of teachers in engineering education. I admit to taking this personal. One of the reasons is because in K-12 engineering education, we are probably doing the same thing by introducing ENE quickly without all the background research and planning (or documentation of it) and asking teachers to do the best they can only to blame them for being unprepared and not preparing students for university. Do we stop, pause, or take a timeout? Would teachers of ENE have a higher regard than teachers of science or math or technical ed? (I don't personally (I think) care about hierarchy of regard, but let's not ignore what we do here in our categorizations.)
   
4. Note: We still have problem sets. I keep them as a monument to my time spent on them but they have become objects with less meaning than they had when I did them the first time. My knowledge on paper then is more or less than the knowledge in my head now? Which one is more valuable? How are we showing that?
   

I ask these questions because almost three-quarters of a century later, we are attempting to reinvent a wheel and it looks as if we are using the same parts to do it that we did the first time. As we do this, are we attempting to actually change the wheel or just change the pieces that go into it or the vehicles that the wheel gets used on?

Is this education?

Thinking about what I am doing in this class, reading Noddings, reading the posts, making notes, and trying to start my essay, I realized that was easier to start with an example of what is education. Understanding this process, the History & Philosophy of Engineering Education process, should help me to figure out what is education about. That is right; starting with concrete things moving through more abstract hypothesis about what is education (is this scaffolding?).

To start looking into our process, I realize we take some key (or engaging) points from the book (or authors). As Xingyu said, she “learn from Noddings’ book that constructivism is an epistemology describing how learning happens” for example.

From those key points and thinkers’ views, we also take part of the discussion, stating what we think, like when Ben assures “I strongly believe that rational thinkers exercise their skills in familiar fields of experiences”. Also when we highlight important or interesting things, as Tatiana wrote: “I agreed with Piaget’s approach that it is impossible to know what is «knowledge» without knowing who «knower» is”.

Even more, we also appropriate some statements or make some connections around those, like Jeremy did when said “I wonder would a similar critique be given today [talking about warrior glorification] - or in any time in history, for that matter. Are traces of things our society glorifies evident in our education system”. We also reflect on how or why those connections and views are important for us, as students “From what I have been taught thus far, this is a problem solving method for technical engineering class”(Benjamin), or as teachers “Do I violate the «freedom» proposition by Existentialists if I advise them to stay away from drugs and cigarette?”(Xingyu).

To make it short, we read, we highlight ideas, we appropriate some, we connect some others… how are we constructing new knowledge?

To “appropriate” the constructivism perspective, I do think we are creating knew knowledge. About how those thinkers’ ideas can change our way of teaching, making us reflect about why is important for us as students, as well as for our students, to understand the learning process. Writing those reflections make us “dialogue” with each other, to have even more thinking inside us… Each day the conversation change, it depends on our mood, on our readings, on if is Thursday (class day) or not. But this “dialogue” is here, permanent for us to come back and reflect and connect again and again… Is our knowledge… our social construction…

Any way, I am now talking about knowledge, what is the connection with education? Does the “construction of new knowledge” implies, for me, education?