Conference Session

The Philosophy of Engineering and Technological Literacy

Collection

2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Alan Cheville, Bucknell University; John Heywood, Trinity CollegeDublin, The University of Dublin

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Technological and Engineering Literacy/Philosophy of Engineering

engineering education of critical self-reflection andfocusing on problems. This is not surprising because as early as the nineteenth century theUnited States possessed a Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education that hadsponsored the first of these major reflections, and subsequently several more. Socially relevantissues in engineering education (and STEM education more generally) are often identified bynationally distributed reports from blue ribbon panels. In engineering these date back to theMann report of 1918, through the 1923 Wickenden study, the 1940 Hammond Report, the 1955Grinter Report, the Goals of Engineering Education report (1968), Engineering Education andPractice in the United States (1985), The Engineer of 2020 (2004), to

Conference Session

Promoting Engineering and Technological Literacy

Collection

2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Dan G. Dimitriu, University of Texas at San Antonio; Mehdi Shadaram P.E., University of Texas, San Antonio

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Technological and Engineering Literacy/Philosophy of Engineering

exists.In 1996 ABET (formerly the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology), adopted anew set of standards for undergraduate engineering education. They were called EngineeringCriteria 2000 and shifted the focus of undergraduate engineering accreditation from lists ofrequired courses to eleven learning outcomes (9).Preliminary WorkSome of the new outcomes went beyond the standard classic engineering education. Amongthem five outcomes (listed below as “f” through “g”) were a clear reflection of the need toanchor engineering education into ever-evolving reality of interaction between technology andsociety:f. An understanding of professional and ethical responsibilityg. An ability to communicate effectivelyh. The broad education necessary to

Conference Session

Promoting Engineering and Technological Literacy

Collection

2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Janet L. Gbur, Case Western Reserve University; Daniela Solomon, Case Western Reserve University

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Technological and Engineering Literacy/Philosophy of Engineering

Workshop should have less speakers Other (please specifiy)Figure 2. Results from the panelist survey based on how the event could be improvedThe results of the attendee survey mirrored the panelists’ responses on the organization andlength of the workshop again noting that it was a well-organized event and the length wasappropriate, though a small percentage felt the event was somewhat long. In addition to thesequestions, the attendees were also asked to reflect on their thoughts regarding workshop content,suggestions for future events, if they would consider attending again and most importantly thebenefit(s) from attendance.The attendees overwhelmingly replied that the topic was of interest to them and that some

Conference Session

Promoting Engineering and Technological Literacy

Collection

2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Jonathan Grunert, Virginia Tech; Stephanie G. Adams, Virginia Tech

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Technological and Engineering Literacy/Philosophy of Engineering

and Exposition,Seattle, Washington. 10.18260/p.246415 Riley, Donna. Engineering and social justice. Chapter 2 “Mindsets in Engineering” Synthesis Lectures onEngineers, Technology, and Society 3.1 (2008): 33-45.6 Bandura, Albert. (1977). “Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.” Psychological Review,Vol 84(2), Mar 1977, 191-215.Acknowledgment: This material is based upon work supported, in part, by the National ScienceFoundation, under grant 1256529. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendationsexpressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views ofthe National Science Foundation.For more on content of the course, see Riley, D., Grunert, J., Jalali, Y., Adams, S.G