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)

The importance of Critical thinking in justifying enrollment of more women in engineering

Bix’s two articles talked about the gender issue in engineering. Also, I’ve read some articles doing research on how to enroll more female students in engineering. Usually in these articles, the authors mentioned the importance and necessity of enrolling more women with very limited discussion. I accepted the statistics stated in the introduction part of these articles that women were under-represented in scientific disciplines. But I never thought about the justification of the action of enrolling more women in engineering.

Yesterday I read a paper titled On enrolling more female students in science and engineering (Bouville, 2008). Bouville argued that the belief of enrolling more women in science and engineering was self-evident. He asked for a need to examine the justification of such belief carefully. The article listed several commonly proposed justifications in recruiting more female students: increasing needs of the economic development, higher salaries, the possibility to help others, the necessity and positive impact of diversity, and under-representation. Then Bouville used reasoning and illustration to argue that these statements did not justify the recruitment of more women in science and engineering. Bouville proposed there should be a mutual attraction between women and scientific fields. He further suggested we should give women freedom to choose study fields and allow them to graduate according to their abilities and desires, rather than try to draw as many of them to scientific disciplines as possible.

I agree with most of Bouville’s arguments. The article challenged the fundamental belief of the necessity of enrolling more female students in science and engineering. It reminds me of the importance of critical thinking in justifying a research topic. As the author described, I used to believe universities should encourage and enroll more women in engineering, because they were under-represented and because engineering needed diversity. I accepted such “facts” without carefully examining the justification of them. I did not realize that under-representation was merely a statistical result in itself but was not necessarily bad news. Therefore, we could suggest under-representation should be avoided only if such under-representation is caused by illegitimate action or manner. Meanwhile, even if engineering needed diversity, I don't think it was sufficient to say we should enroll more women because they have new ideas. Otherwise, people who had new ideas should be employed, such as foreign engineers. Moreover, I missed one critical point in my former belief: the attraction of engineering to women. We could not simply suggest to enroll more women in engineering without figuring out whether they really want to choose engineering as their study field.

However, I disagree with one of Bouville’s arguments. He argued that if we told girls that engineering was rewarding and encouraged them to pursue careers as engineers, we were tampering and manipulating them towards engineering. He believed the operation of outreach program (program that gives high school girls early exposure to hands-on experience of engineering) was to make the decision for young girls by choosing what information we wanted to present to them. I disagree with this viewpoint for I believe young girls have their own subjective initiative, which means they are the final decision makers of choosing certain field to study. Engineering outreach programs do provide opportunities for young girls to gain some knowledge and experiences of what engineering is about, and they do encourage young girls to pursue engineer career, but decisions are still left for young girls to make such as the attendance of outreach program and pursuance of engineering career. Also, I wonder how adolescents could generate their interest in certain field without prior experiences related to this field. In choosing certain discipline to study, adolescents would certainly be influenced by external factors such as prior experiences and guidance from parents. As long as outreach programs do not produce a biased image of engineering, I think they should not be blamed for encouraging young girls to engineering.

Reference: Bouville, M. (2008). On enrolling more female students in science and engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(2), 279-290.

Alice's MISs from Week 11 class

My offerings for the most important sentences from the 4 readings from this week's class:

Slaton 2001: 

 p. 51 -- “The materials experts, outlining requirements for success in their field, attached moral and cultural achievement to a set of personal features – namely, masculine gender and other “inherited” characteristics. With this kind of attachment one could formulate an image of good engineers as best derived from a “stock” of white males. If gender and ethnic origin can be seen to determine technical prowess, one then has a means of attaching technical ability, and all its associated social rewards, to that social “stock.”

or 

p. 60 -- “The presentation of character, religious practice, gender, race, and even voice and hair color as matters pertinent to technical operations fits with the subjective nature of technical work outlined within engineering coursework.

Slaton 2010

Ch 4 

p. 100 -- “It is exactly the nature of the “pool” that requires historical analysis if we are to understand the ongoing underrepresentation of African Americans in engineering. If a student arrived at the end of high school without having achieved visible and conventional measures of academic success, he or she was not invited into the world of higher engineering education. This was disproportionately the case with minority students who made up the majority at underfunded, inner-city high schools.... Thus, to mandate the admission of only qualified and not qualifiable students put the burden of integration on a part of the education system that patently was not doing its job.”

p. 101 -- “What would have happened if institutes of technology and universities, given enough support and sanctioning by employers of their engineering graduates, took over the task of remedial education? Schools could conceivably maintain sound material standards for engineering but train students over longer periods, with greater provisions for remedial instruction. Even if such instruction costs more than existing approaches, why have educators and policy makers historically not found it worth expending such resources to correct a social inequity?”

p. 133 -- "These familiar categories of analysis [connect to Bowker & Star!] helped to naturalize the idea that economic activity can connect apart from social considerations. To suggest that social matters can or should be introduced into economic decision making obscures the fact that economic priorities are born of social priorities.”

p. 134 -- "What did it mean for engineers to insist in this period that “technical” and “social” were two different epistemic categories?"

Bix 2002

p. 730 “These treatments embedded lessons in physics and engineering squarely inside culturally acceptable boundaries of women’s knowledge.”

Bix 2005

p. 123 “War even fostered appreciation of the potential talent of women in home economics, especially those majoring in domestic technology.”

p. 125, "Cadettes’ presence also led male engineering students to reevaluate assumptions linking technical education to masculinity."

Folks did a nice job picking these themes out (even through other sentences).  Thanks for putting them on the blog so we can remember them too.

Bix article:"Equipped for Life"

Our group (Tosin, Angela, Hadi, Corey, and myself) discussed Bix article "Equipped for Life: Gender Technical Training and Consumerism in Home Economics, 1920-1980". We agreed the main argument/summary is: Home economics in Iowa state helped pioneer the development of women's engineering education.

The tensions and boundary work noticeable in the article are:
the program's name "Home Economics"
what is perceived as appropriate for women
context
participation
academic environment vs home environment
engineering vs technician

Our MIS (pg.729): "They created an alternate vision of gendered knowledge, asserting a link between technical mastery and femininity – at least in the domain of the kitchen".

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.

My 'so what' of today

Although it's a short post, I want to share my 'so what' thoughts of the day. I am hoping that others will be able to share their ideas and expand on mine.

So what: Who decides what engineering is and how that affects who becomes an engineer. This also affects who is taught what in order to become an engineer vs. engineering technician vs. scientist vs. home economist/consumer. Shift from shop work to theory based engineering education (brought from France) change who became an engineer. Institutional bias in admissions based on qualified vs. qualifiable also excluded certain people from becoming engineers (i.e. not native born middleclass white males). Paradigm shifts may be caused by some event, for example, war. TENSIONS

Slaton Concrete notes

Slaton Concrete

Write an abstract/summary of this article. What is argument in 1 sentence?
- Historical perspective highlighting boundaries in engineering and engineering judgment (thinking aspect/workforce dynamics/hierarchy/innate characteristics) in the concrete industry from 1900-1930.

What are tensions and boundary work?
- Automated system vs. humanistic approach
- Tension in trying to keep engineers at top level (managers vs. laborer, white vs. blue collar)
- Hierarchical occupational vision
- Engineers purveyors of standards, but only certain people (native born middleclass white male) had the character to outline those standards
- Theory vs. cut-and-try method
- Science vs. engineering
- Gender and ethnicity
- Native born middleclass white male vs. everyone else

What would Alice say MIS is? Why?
- MIS pg. 51 “attach moral/cultural features…technical prowess…social rewards.”