Addressing Engineering Reductionism by Reimagining ABET Outcomes

Marie Stettler Kleine; Aubrey Wigner; Dean Nieusma; Chelsea Salinas

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Baltimore , Maryland
Publication Date: June 25, 2023
Start Date: June 25, 2023
End Date: June 28, 2023
Conference Session: Sociotechnical Systems in Practice
Tagged Division: Liberal Education/Engineering & Society Division (LEES)
Page Count: 13
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--42572
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/42572
Download Count: 199

Request a correction

Paper Authors

biography

Marie Stettler Kleine Colorado School of Mines orcid.org/0000-0003-1461-716X

visit author page

Marie Stettler Kleine is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Engineering, Design, and Society. She conducts research on engineering practice and pedagogy, exploring its origins, purposes, and potential futures. Marie is especially interested in the roles of values in engineers’ pursuit to “do good.”

Marie received her B.S. in mechanical engineering and international studies from Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology and M.S. and PhD in science and technology studies (STS) from Virginia Tech. She also earned a graduate certificate in human-centered design (HCD) from the Interdisciplinary Graduate Education Program at Virginia Tech.

Marie’s interest in values and engagement in professional cultures also extends to innovation and its experts. With Matthew Wisnioski and Eric Hintz, Marie co-edited Does America Need More Innovators? (MIT Press, 2019). This project engages innovation’s champions, critics, and reformers in critical participation.

visit author page

biography

Aubrey Wigner Colorado School of Mines

visit author page

Aubrey Wigner is an assistant professor at the Colorado School of Mines where he teaches engineering design, entrepreneurship, and systems design.

visit author page

biography

Dean Nieusma Colorado School of Mines orcid.org/0000-0003-2711-3315

visit author page

Dean Nieusma is Department Head of Engineering, Design, and Society at Colorado School of Mines.

visit author page

biography

Chelsea Salinas Colorado School of Mines

visit author page

Chelsea Salinas is a Teaching Associate Professor at the Colorado School of Mines where she focuses on teaching design thinking strategies at both the freshman and senior level. She has a great excitement in improving the lives of those individuals with b

visit author page

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

However effective it may be pedagogically in teaching engineering analysis, a reductionist approach to engineering problem solving has been widely identified as a barrier to students’ engagement with real-world entanglements and the development of professional skills needed for practice in all but the most constrained engineering problem-solving spaces. One prevalent response to reductionist problem solving is to teach students to engage with the solution-generation process further upstream, to precede solution generation with problem definition. Problem definition is where real-world problems are translated into “engineering” problems, which is to say, problems amenable to engineering analysis. Often referred to as “problem definition and solution,” or PDS, this approach helps students recognize the wide range of contextual factors that influence the reduction of real-world design spaces into a neatly bounded engineering problem. This paper builds upon and expands the PDS approach by positing “problem framing” as a coequal dimension of engineering education alongside “problem solving.” By problem framing we mean to engage students not only in translating real-world problems into engineering problems (i.e., “problem definition”) but also to grapple with the wide-ranging conditions that lead to accepted and acceptable engineering problem statements. To explore how engineering education can engage more holistic and complex problems by elevating problem framing as a precursor skillset to problem solving, we review a variety of provocations based on our experience in program and curriculum building through sociotechnical integration in multiple academic initiatives within the Engineering, Design, and Society Department (EDS) at the Colorado School of Mines. We discuss interventions that take place across the curriculum, including our first-year introduction to engineering design course, integrating design throughout an engineering curriculum via a design spine, and how we consider problem framing as a core component of our ABET accreditation performance indicators. Rather than attempting to provide a series of “problem-framing best practices,” we seek instead to promote a deeper conversation on how engineering educators perceive and frame engineering problem solving, the assessment of student learning of sociotechnical integration, and engineering judgment post-graduation.

Citation
Format

Kleine, M. S., & Wigner, A., & Nieusma, D., & Salinas, C. (2023, June), Addressing Engineering Reductionism by Reimagining ABET Outcomes Paper presented at 2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Baltimore , Maryland. 10.18260/1-2--42572

TY  - CPAPER
AB  - However effective it may be pedagogically in teaching engineering analysis, a reductionist approach to engineering problem solving has been widely identified as a barrier to students’ engagement with real-world entanglements and the development of professional skills needed for practice in all but the most constrained engineering problem-solving spaces. One prevalent response to reductionist problem solving is to teach students to engage with the solution-generation process further upstream, to precede solution generation with problem definition. Problem definition is where real-world problems are translated into “engineering” problems, which is to say, problems amenable to engineering analysis. Often referred to as “problem definition and solution,” or PDS, this approach helps students recognize the wide range of contextual factors that influence the reduction of real-world design spaces into a neatly bounded engineering problem. This paper builds upon and expands the PDS approach by positing “problem framing” as a coequal dimension of engineering education alongside “problem solving.” By problem framing we mean to engage students not only in translating real-world problems into engineering problems (i.e., “problem definition”) but also to grapple with the wide-ranging conditions that lead to accepted and acceptable engineering problem statements. 
To explore how engineering education can engage more holistic and complex problems by elevating problem framing as a precursor skillset to problem solving, we review a variety of provocations based on our experience in program and curriculum building through sociotechnical integration in multiple academic initiatives within the Engineering, Design, and Society Department (EDS) at the Colorado School of Mines. We discuss interventions that take place across the curriculum, including our first-year introduction to engineering design course, integrating design throughout an engineering curriculum via a design spine, and how we consider problem framing as a core component of our ABET accreditation performance indicators. Rather than attempting to provide a series of “problem-framing best practices,” we seek instead to promote a deeper conversation on how engineering educators perceive and frame engineering problem solving, the assessment of student learning of sociotechnical integration, and engineering judgment post-graduation.

AU  - Marie Stettler Kleine
AU  - Aubrey Wigner
AU  - Dean Nieusma
AU  - Chelsea Salinas
CY  - Baltimore , Maryland
DA  - 2023/06/25
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Addressing Engineering Reductionism by Reimagining ABET Outcomes
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/42572
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--42572
ER  -