What is engineering? Elaborating the nature of engineering for K‐12 education

Pleasants, Jacob; Olson, Joanne K.

doi:10.1002/sce.21483

Cited by 107 publications

(90 citation statements)

References 105 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Instead, they encounter “generic courses in mathematics and physics” (p. 167), courses that they find “to be detached and far removed from the applicable real‐life engineering that they had applied for, and they struggled to see how the mathematics taught related to the kind of engineering they were enrolled in at all” (p. 160). This can be related to Pleasants' and Olson's (2019) discussion of reductionism as a characterizing, cultural feature of problem solving in engineering. They discuss how “subdividing and reducing real‐world situations to entities such as force or voltage” is what makes engineering knowledge powerful.…”

Section: Gender‐based and Class‐based Critiques Of Engineering Educationmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…Our analysis does not undermine the claim that the engineering curriculum can indeed be reductionist and too focused on theory and abstraction. Naturally, while such reductionism contributes to making engineering knowledge powerful (Pleasants & Olson, 2019), this can be alienating for students and particularly problematic for students who do not match the normative and who already struggle to “fit into” engineering education (e.g., female or other minority students). This is an important lesson from feminist research and highlights how feminist interventions into engineering education can be of value to a range of students, regardless of whether there are female students present in a particular classroom setting or not.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They discuss how “subdividing and reducing real‐world situations to entities such as force or voltage” is what makes engineering knowledge powerful. However, they also point out that “technologies do not exist only as abstractions, and an overreliance on reductionism can cause inattention to important real‐world complexities, such as user experiences” (Pleasants & Olson, 2019, p. 158).…”

Section: Gender‐based and Class‐based Critiques Of Engineering Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Contextualizing technology: Between gender pluralization and class reproduction

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A diverse body of feminist scholarship has addressed the masculine orientation of Western engineering education for at least four decades. Among critiques specifically targeting curriculum, a recurrent line of argumentation highlights its reductionist framing and narrow focus on mathematics and technology. The argument is that these traits represent a masculine orientation and that women would gain from a curriculum more oriented towards the context and applicability of technical knowledge. Simultaneously, researchers working in a Bernsteinian, social realist, educational tradition have suggested that, from a social-class perspective, it is important to provide all students with access to theoretical, abstract and context-independent knowledge. This article explores the resultant, theoretical tension between these two positions. Our empirical starting point is a recently completed ethnographic study of a male-dominated bachelor's degree engineering program in Sweden. This program's curriculum repeatedly emphasizes the value of experiential and contextually rooted knowledge over contextless and mathematically modeled knowledge. Borrowing Bernstein's terminology, we argue that such emphasis represents a privileging of horizontal discourse over vertical and that, as such, said curriculum potentially deprives the male, working-class students of access to powerful knowledge. We further ---This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

show abstract

Section: Gender‐based and Class‐based Critiques Of Engineering Educationmentioning

confidence: 86%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Gender‐based and Class‐based Critiques Of Engineering Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Contextualizing technology: Between gender pluralization and class reproduction

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Promotion of engineering/technology design appears to be a prominent feature of many STEM education initiatives, often stated in terms of needs to create innovative products and services that may solve various social and environmental problems. Pleasant and Olson (2018), for instance, suggest that STEM educators "... engage learners in building a wind or water turbine connected to a generator to light a bulb. An associated driving question or driving problem might be: How can I illuminate a light bulb using water or wind power?"…”

Section: Developing and Mobilizing 'Wise' Commoditiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mobilizing Altruistic Civic Actions Through School Science

Bencze¹

2019

JASTE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whether or not people in advantages contexts around the globe recognize it, it seems clear that our world is in serious peril. While small fractions of populations enjoy safety, basic comforts and many luxuries, increasingly more people are suffering from job insecurities, a range of health problems and manipulation facilitated by mass surveillance systems. Meanwhile, as few benefit, most of us are threatened by devastating climate change, environmental spoilage and species losses — all apparently undermined by systematic democratic assaults. Although network conceptions of phenomena may suggest distribution of responsibilities for such ills, much data and argument place considerable blame on few rich pro-capitalist individuals (e.g., financiers) and groups (e.g., corporations, think tanks and transnational trade organizations). Given collusion of governments in such social and ecological injustices, it appears extremely necessary that power in masses of people be rallied to critically interrogate actions of powerful entities and develop and take social actions that may lead to increases in social justice and environmental wellbeing. An important context, in light of roles of fields of science and technology in enactment of power, for promotion of such critical and action-oriented civic engagement is school science. Such roles have, indeed, been acknowledged — at least in part — for about the last half-century through ‘science-in-context’ educational domains like ‘STSE’ (Science, Technology, Society, Environment) education. Such more contextualized approaches have, however, been marginalized in most contexts. They are either given little attention or treated in somewhat ‘token’ ways (given severity of harms) by emphasizing individual — albeit reasoned — choices, which happen to be a priority of many capitalists. Marginalization of potential critical and action-oriented science education seems to have, meanwhile, dramatically increased with recent advent of ‘STEM’ (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) education initiatives — many of which prioritize teaching and learning of ‘products,’ such as laws, theories and innovations, of STEM fields and skills to develop them, at expense of educating students about problematic STSE relationships and preparation for possibly-rectifying actions. Given its hegemonic influences, as discussed here, one approach to promoting ecojustice through science education may be through encouraging and enabling youth to develop commodities that are both functional and aim to maximize wellbeing for individuals, societies and environments (WISE). Studies of one teacher’s efforts in this regard suggest considerable successes with such WISE engineering — although, as reported here, successes seem to come at expense of some educational losses that have been tied to pro-capitalist science education. Although such tempered achievements may seem frustrating, those promoting social justice and environmental wellbeing through school science may be motivated by emergent successes and possibilities for mobilizing them across networks of living, nonliving and symbolic entities.

show abstract

“…Some researchers proposed a framework for including standalone engineering courses that complemented a firm foundation in math and science [8], but others proposed a framework in which engineering was integrated into existing STEM courses [9]. Some have criticized the NGSS as only including EDP in the standards, not providing a complete picture of the engineering domain or focusing on the nature of engineering [10]. The NGSS do not include engineering disciplinary core ideas in the standards, but rather focus on integrating EDP into SEP.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Secondary Science Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Engineering: A Learner Analysis

Kilty

Burrows

2019

Education Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to describe how US secondary science preservice teachers, or those preparing to teach middle and high school science, at one university, perceive engineering and teaching engineering within an epistemological framework of required domain components pre-and post-instruction (intervention) as well as over three cohort years. Their perceptions reveal relevant prior beliefs helpful for designing instruction to address an external need to prepare secondary science teachers to teach disciplinary content ideas, cross-cutting concepts, and science and engineering practices to meet the Next Generation Science Standards. Questionnaires administered pre-and post-instruction (intervention), as well as over three years, asked participants to decide whether various scenarios qualified as engineering and then to provide reasoning. Intervention instruction included whole-class discussions of engineering design practices. The responses to the questionnaire were analyzed for thematic content. The results indicate that the secondary science preservice teachers (n = 43) have a novice understanding of engineering and teaching engineering. They gain an emerging understanding during the secondary science methods courses, consistent in all three years with expanding perspectives from narrow discipline views. As their perceptions are refined, however, there are risks of oversimplification, which may lead to forming misconceptions. The recommendations for designing instruction such as secondary science methods courses and early career professional development include creating opportunities for preservice and early career teachers to explore and challenge their perceptions of engineering design practices integrated within science and engineering practices.

show abstract

What is engineering? Elaborating the nature of engineering for K‐12 education

Cited by 107 publications

References 105 publications

Contextualizing technology: Between gender pluralization and class reproduction

Contextualizing technology: Between gender pluralization and class reproduction

Mobilizing Altruistic Civic Actions Through School Science

Secondary Science Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Engineering: A Learner Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About