John Heywood

Philosophy and engineering education. A review of certain developments in the field

In 2005 a review of engineering education publications in the area of philosophy and engineering showed that the majority were concerned with the role of and teaching of ethics. There were some in which the term philosophy was used to explain the rationale behind new programmes. One or two discussed the relevance of philosophy to engineering education, and Koen had just published his major discourse on method. Since then there has been a major thrust to develop a philosophy of engineering that is distinct from the philosophy of science. Much attention has focused on the differences between engineering, science and technology. This movement has had support from the lead professional academies in a number of countries (e.g. China, The Netherlands, the UK and the US). It has inspired seminars and a major international meeting in the Netherlands. The purpose of this paper is to review some of the more than 100 small and large published contributions during the last three years. No attempt is made to review all of them. The purpose is to give the flavour of the debate. It is clear that the mingling of engineering and philosophy raises profound issues and creates great challenges that obligate a response from the engineering community. Many of the publications have something to say about either the curriculum or instruction but they do not draw on the philosophy of education. There is a need for the two philosophies to come together to create a more informed critique of engineering education.

A select and annotated bibliography of philosophy in engineering education

The discussion of a philosophy of engineering and/or engineering education has encouraged the community to try and bring some coherence to the field. This select and annotated bibliography is one resource intended to enhance and continue the conversation. In conjunction with a preparatory review, this bibliography introduces the 2011 FIE special workshop on the subject of exploring the philosophies of engineering and engineering education. This work extends what has been done during the 2007, 2008, and 2009 FIE conferences. Focus is brought to bare on research and theoretical readings that discuss a philosophy of engineering education; the engineering identity crisis; differentiating engineering, science, and technology; engineering science verse engineering design, engineering epistemology, philosophy and practice of the engineering curriculum; philosophy in the engineering curriculum; engineering ethics; and engineering culture. Each of the focus areas is introduced with a list of annotated references that present current ideas, beliefs and findings related to these areas.

Special session - continuing the FIE 2007 conversation on: Can philosophy of engineering education improve the practice of engineering education?

The purpose of this special session is to continue the conversation began at FIE 2007 that asked the question “Can philosophy of engineering education improve the practice of engineering education? The session is summarised on http://www.ws. binghamton. edu/PhilEngEd/ It has become clear that this debate fits in with a broader and international debate on philosophy of engineering that although not directed at the philosophy of education has outcomes that bear on the curriculum and instruction. Some one hundred papers on engineering philosophy have been published in the last three years. A paper summarizing some of the features of these studies accompanies this discussion in the Proceedings. During the year Smith has revisited his suggested reading on the philosophy of education and that is also in the Proceedings. Together this work has enabled us to refocus the issues in order that as a group we can develop our thinking.

A historical overview of recent developments in the search for a philosophy of engineering education

The origins of this historical overview are summarized; namely, the substantial interest in philosophy and engineering and the application of philosophy to engineering education that has emerged in the last five years. Engineering faces a number of identity crises not least among them are on the one hand how it differs if at all from applied science, and on the other hand how it differs from technology. Related to this is the problem of the public identity of engineering and the influence that engineers are able to wield on public policy. Another crisis relates to the engineers role. Is an engineer a scientist or manager? A related question that has a special bearing on education is the relative status assigned to science when compared with design. Attempts to develop a philosophy of engineering are summarized. The argument that engineering educators should have a defensible philosophy of education is summarized, and the value of screening aims and objectives demonstrated. Arguments for teaching engineering students are summarized, more particularly those that advocate the teaching of the philosophical method as an aid to learning engineering on the one hand, and those that programs focused in one way or another on the teaching of philosophy per se. Finally, some recent developments in the teaching of ethics to engineering students are discussed and the recent interest in moral development following Kohlbergs theory is noted.

Screening curriculum aims and objectives using the philosophy of education

A special session at the 2007 Frontiers in Education Conference was devoted to the question ldquoCan philosophy of engineering education improve the practice of engineering?rdquo In supporting a positive answer to this question it is argued that philosophy can contribute to better educational decision making, as for example in the screening of aims and of objectives. If that is the case then every engineering educator should have a defensible philosophy of education. The intention of this paper is to argue the case for screening using the example of the constructivist-realist debate that has pre-occupied teaching in science during the last twenty-five years. It is argued that at the epistemological level the stance taken by the educator has implications for the teaching of ethics. At the pedagogical level the differences are minimal although constructivism has caused consideration of ldquonegotiated curricularrdquo that has consequences for the design of project work. Realists have pointed out that in certain circumstances rote learning is likely to be necessary. Both theories support the contention that too much is covered in the curriculum. Brief mention is made of constructive alternativism. It is concluded that the learning procedures used will depend on the objectives to be obtained. It is argued that this discussion supports the contention that the screening of aims using the philosophy of education is a valuable exercise.

Case for reflection in engineering education- and an alternative

This paper examines the use of reflections in engineering education. The paper provides a review of practices in engineering education, especially during the last century. It starts by reviewing the research and pedagogical approaches in utilization of reflections and various reflective activities in engineering education. Then the authors provide various perspectives regarding reflective activities. The first part of the paper establishes the case for featuring reflective activity in engineering education. The writers were a pairing of a committed reflective practitioner and a staunch disciple of Dewey. An alternative commentary is given by the third author.

Teaching philosophy to engineering students

The intention of this paper is to accompany the two special sessions on teaching philosophy in engineering courses as a vehicle for reflection on the subject matter of these sessions.

Special session - Teaching philosophy in engineering courses

Interest in philosophy and engineering continues to develop. Another special session was held at FIE 2008 and there was a complete paper session devoted to the topic. The second international workshop on philosophy and engineering followed. Many of the contributions at this workshop once again showed that general discussions about philosophy and engineering have outcomes that have implications for the engineering curriculum. An emerging strand relates to the idea that philosophy, in addition to ethics, should be taught in the engineering curriculum. How this should be done is a matter of debate. The questions posed relate to content and method. For example should it be a separate course or integrated into existing programmes, as for example design where there is already a relevant and high quality literature? Is it concerned with the acquisition of philosophical knowledge as covered by the traditional disciplines of knowledge or is it about helping students to develop a philosophical disposition?

The idea of instructional leadership in engineering education

During the last thirty years, the period of the Frontiers in Education conferences, there has been a research movement that has studied school effectiveness and thus the factors that lead to school improvement. While this movement has been of considerable interest to politicians and policy makers the idea of such research has made little impact on higher education where ideas derived from industry such as total quality management seem to have had greater effect. Associated with the school effectiveness movement is the concept of educational leadership and an ancillary concept of instructional leadership neither idea of which has infiltrated higher education. In parallel with these developments the study of qualitative and quantitative methods of educational research has made considerable progress. The purpose of this paper is to argue the case for instructional leadership in higher education and to indicate the qualities and knowledge required by those who might be asked to carry out such a task in engineering education. The paper begins with a summary of the research on school effectiveness.

More by luck than good judgement: Moral purpose in engineering education policy making for change

Since the end of the Second World War there has been a considerable growth in knowledge in what engineering education is about. This has been accompanied by a number of reports, particularly in the US, that to some extent are repetitive but in the language of the period. These reports were to a large extent based on informed opinion. These beliefs are deeply entrenched in Western Psyche and encompass beliefs about what students should learn, how they learn and how they should be taught. These views are obtained early being formed by the long experience of elementary, post-elementary and higher education and are often difficult to shift without a substantial chocs des opinions. Policy making is often made on the basis of opinion that has been informed by experience that makes itself into a self-fulfilling hypothesis that shuts out anything that is likely to create a dissonance. One consequence has been a growth of a gap between those who practice in classrooms and those who do educational research. In no other area of inquiry is the vast body of knowledge that is available on the theory and practice of education, theory taken in the broadest meaning of the term, ignored by those who make policy and practice in the classroom. It is contended here that that is morally irresponsible, and the fact that policy makers and practitioners do not have personal philosophies and theories of learning based on that world of knowledge is one of the causes of friction between these two groups. Decisions that work do so more by good luck, than good judgement. All should have received substantial training on which to build their advice, or consult with those undertaking research, and more particularly indicate research they think should be done. A not infrequent complaint is that teachers do not adapt to this or that learning strategy or use this or that particular tool (e.g. concept inventory). At the 2015 ASEE annual conference the representative of ABET lamented that academics had not used the assessment system to innovate. It is contended that innovation is unlikely in the absence of substantial prior knowledge that can enable an innovation to be progressed. It is similarly contended that the friction caused by the ABET proposals cannot be resolved without attention to knowledge that exists in the area of accreditation and assessment. The purpose of this paper is to review some of that research and scholarship as it relates to the proposition that university courses should produce graduates who are able to take up positions in industry without further training.