Defining Engineering and Technological Literacies within the Framework of Liberal Education: Implications for the Curriculum

This paper develops a discussion begun in earlier papers between 2010 and 2012 by members of the Technological Literacy Division of ASEE. Technological literacy is a muddled concept for which reason members of the Technological Literacy Division led by John Krupczak have found it necessary to distinguish between two literaciesengineering and technological [1]. Accompanying this work, Mani Mina and others have also established a framework for the design and implementation of minor courses for the development of engineering and technological literacy among non-engineers [2]. It follows immediately from the argument that if engineering is necessarily a component of liberal education, and that if it is used as the focal point of a program of integrated study, the barriers that have been erected between liberal education and vocational education break down [3]. The first intention of this paper is to argue that the pursuit of technological literacy necessarily involves the pursuit of engineering literacy. Secondly, it demonstrates a model of technological literacy in which the two literacies are conflated. It is shown that the capabilities required by the model would also meet the requirements of such groups of employers as those who responded to the report from the Minnesota Office of Higher Education [3]. The third intention is to argue that reconciliation between the two literacies is more easily accomplished if new curriculum structures can be embraced. While it is understood that particular notions of curriculum structure are deeply embedded in a culture, it is argued that this embededness prevents a culture from reflecting on how it should respond to the explosion in knowledge that has occurred in the last century. This requires thinking outside the box about alternative curriculum structures. A model curriculum for a college engineering and technological literacy program is described. Its framework is derived from elements of an experimental program in technology education designed for the transition year of Irish post-primary education. It was based on Whitehead’s theory of rhythm in learning. Following a brief introduction the paper begins with a discussion of the differences between engineering and technological literacy Introduction; defining technological and engineering literacy Irrespective of the internet, knowledge in all areas of learning information continues to expand, and the internet makes it readily available. How it is handled, as the flow of papers published in IEEE Technology and Society and other journals show, is becoming increasingly problematic for knowledge is one of the most useful mechanisms of control that we have. Ease of information availability brings with it problems of ownership, intellectual property rights, privacy, and in extremis secrecy. Its handling also brings with it the need for higher order thinking skills in order for individuals and groups to cope with major moral issues as well as such things as new types of social relationship, psychological problems of IT addiction, and issues relating to personal feelings of control. To deal with these problems the new knowledge area of technological literacy has been developed. Recently the idea of “engineering literacy” has been added to the concept of technological literacy. As might be expected this has caused some confusion. How technological and engineering literacies are differentiated from each other is a matter of considerable importance. For example, Krupczak has pointed out (private communication) P ge 24356.2 2 that many groups are now combining technological literacy and engineering literacy without much concern for distinguishing between the two. In this respect he draws attention to the fact that the US based International Technology Association has recently changed its name to the International Technology and Engineering Association (ITEA) [4]. This association has been involved in the development of a test of engineering and technological literacy as part of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAERP) test in the US [5]. Krupczak argues, perhaps controversially, that ITEA appended engineering to its name and mission with little outward indication of any change in its philosophical alignment. This is unsurprising since the Association is representative of school teachers, few of whom would have practised engineering. The problem underlines the value of the work undertaken by Krupczak and his colleagues in clarifying these terms as a basis for philosophical discussion. Krupczak et al in their justification of the development of programs in engineering and technological literacy write that since “engineering concepts are pervasive in decision making within industry, government, education, health care” every citizen should be exposed in their education “to the central ideas and principles underlying our technological society” [1]. They find support for this view in the National Academy of Engineering’s reports on “Technically Speaking: Why all Americans Need to Know more about Technology”, and “Changing the Conversation. Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering” [6]. No wonder then that a variety of courses in the guise of technological literacy have been introduced in the United States, or that there is much discourse about their content arising from the meaning that technology has for different groups of people. For example, a key issue for engineering policy makers is whether “technology” and “engineering” are synonymous “concepts”. That this should be an issue is not surprising for, while there seems to be a public stereotype of the “technologist”, a term that is often linked with “scientist” there seems to be no great perception of what it is that engineers do, or of the significance of the term “engineering”. This may be regarded as harmful to the image of the engineer and consequently to the engineer’s status in society. So a key question for engineers is where does engineering literacy fit into the muddle that has become technological literacy? The Krupczak et al, paper grew out of an attempt by members of the Technological Literacy Division of the American Society for Engineering Education to respond to these issues. They set out to offer a “well-defined understanding of each of these areas” as “an essential first step in developing a means to promote these understandings in the undergraduate general education program”. They presented several different ways of distinguishing between engineering and technological literacy. In one of them they argued that “engineering literacy is viewed as having a focus directed more toward the process of creating technological artefacts or systems.” In contrast “technological literacy includes a broader view of products or results of the engineering process as well as the relation between technology and society”. Krupzcak et al acknowledge that the “extent to which engineering and technological literacy form a subset of each other remains a topic for future discussion and investigation”. On the basis of a process/product view of the issue Krupczak et al argue that a person who is P ge 24356.3 3 technologically literate would have a “knowledge or ability to design, analyze or otherwise create the constituent parts of the....”, and they give the example of the motor car. This may be compared with the broader view cited immediately above [1]. They point out that in spite of the fact that “technology can be viewed as identifiable things that result from engineering or related work” and should therefore “include some knowledge of these concepts, systems and processes” the “term engineering is not treated systematically by any of the technological literacy standards” [1]. The implications for the curriculum are profound. At one extreme, content arises from consideration of the impact of technology on society and individuals in particular, and at the other end of the spectrum, it arises from the needs of non-engineers to deal with engineers and engineering in their everyday activities. Given this scenario it is possible to envisage two (or more) entirely different programs in technological literacy. The question arises as to how these two might be linked in order to generate a common understanding of what it is to be engineering and technologically literate. The purpose of this study is to argue that reconciliation between the two literacies is more easily accomplished if new approaches to curriculum structure can be embraced. While it is understood that the present notion of curriculum structure is deeply embedded in cultures, it is argued that this prevents a culture from reflecting in its programs the explosion of knowledge that has brought with it a much greater understanding of how individuals and teams learn, or the need for non-uniform blocks of knowledge that inform that understanding. A curriculum model that steps outside the plausibility structure will be presented. Engineering, technology, liberal education and the development of transferable skills In a paper to the Technological Literacy Division of ASEE in 2010 it was argued that engineering was necessarily a component of liberal education [7]. The defining characteristic of liberal education was “enlargement of mind”. This “enlargement” was achieved by the capacity to perceive inter-relationships between the areas that comprise “universal knowledge” as it is currently understood. It follows that consideration of the “product” (technological literacy) without consideration of the “process” (engineering literacy) is not a liberal education. Furthermore, although not expressed in this way in the classical literature on the topic, this “enlargement” contributed to the development of the whole person, an aim that is often expressed by liberal educators. The paper demonstrated how engineering problem solving and finding mirrored the process of liberal education. The solution of engineering p