Critical Technology Integration in Pursuit of a Liberatory Engineering Education

Holly Maribeth Plank

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2022 ASEE - North Central Section Conference
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Publication Date: March 18, 2022
Start Date: March 18, 2022
End Date: April 4, 2022
Tagged Topic: Diversity
Page Count: 11
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--39232
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/39232
Download Count: 367

Paper Authors

biography

Holly Maribeth Plank University of Pittsburgh

visit author page

Holly Plank is a PhD student, graduate student researcher, and teacher educator in the School of Education at the University of Pittsburgh. She is a former middle school science and Physical Science classroom teacher. She has also previously worked as a science content facilitator, instructional coach, department chair, and school leader. Holly's research interests include teacher education, STEAM, computational thinking instruction, and environmental justice.

visit author page

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

Critical Technology Integration in Pursuit of a Liberatory Engineering Education Educational scholar Dr. Bettina Love relentlessly advocates for the urgent need for abolitionist teachers who can design curriculum and educational experiences for our students that are liberatory in nature (Love, 2019). A liberatory engineering education has the potential to empower our historically underrepresented students to be the kind of engineers who will collaboratively strive for a just world and solve humanity’s most pressing problems. Technology integration in engineering curriculum can either aid and hinder students’ ability to thrive as humans as well as potential future engineers. After years of seeing the ways technology can be integrated into contexts of all shapes and sizes in K-12, it is clear that engineering educators need to critically evaluate the potential impact classroom technology integration.

Engineering education can look vastly different from one school district to another. For example, some schools may have designated engineering classes while other incorporate engineering concepts and practices into computer science, technology education, STEM, and/or STEAM pathways. Others focus on integrating engineering practices into core subjects like science. Regardless of the grade level, course name, or area of expertise; engineering educators must carefully consider the tradeoffs and synergies of technology integration though the lens of broad, liberatory student outcomes that move beyond academic achievement alone. There are a number of practical frameworks educators can use as tools to overcome common challenges to technology integration (Groff and Mouza, 2008), build teachers’ capacity to integrate content and technology (Brantley-Dias and Ertmer, 2013), and determine the level of technology needed to improve various student outcomes (Davies and West, 2013). However, these tools are often aimed towards student academic achievement outcomes alone (Lei and Zhao, 2007).

Engineers of 2030 need the tools to achieve academically as well as to communicate effectively, grow personally, critically evaluate tradeoffs and synergies, and gain access to pathways of opportunity in the field (Gunn, 2000; 2021). One step towards a liberatory engineering education is us as educators to realign our philosophy of technology integration in “pursuit of educational freedom” (Love, 2019).

When designing a K-12 engineering curriculum, it is important for us to continuously ask- when does technology integration enhance or hinder our students’ ability to thrive as humans and potential future engineers? What does it take to balance technology with authenticity? The purpose of this paper is to provide readers with a front row seat to one educators’ reflection on her evolving understanding of the nuances of determining when technology in engineering education can be liberatory and enhance human flourishing using current literature as well as her positionality and diverse experiences in the field of education. Readers should be able to engage with key questions for reflecting on the relationship between human flourishing and technology integration, consider how to support engineering educators’ development of judgement for technology integration, and take an opportunity to reflect on their own context and evolving understanding of a liberatory engineering education. Keywords: Engineering Education, Technology Integration, K-12, Liberation

References Brantley-Dias, L. & Ertmer, P.A. (2013). Goldilocks and TPACK, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(2), 103-128, DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2013.1078615

Davies, R.S. & West, R.E. (2013). Technology integration in schools. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. 841-853 Groff, J. & Mouza, C. (2008). A framework for addressing challenges to classroom technology use. AACE Journal, 16(1), 21-46. Gunn, C. J. (2021, March), Aiming for a System that Provides Closer to 100% of a Student’s Needs Paper presented at 2021 ASEE North Central Section Conference, University of Toledo, Ohio. https://peer.asee.org/36333 Gunn, C. (2000, June), Utilizing Co Op To Further Liberal Education Within Engineering. Paper presented at 2000 Annual Conference, St. Louis, Missouri. 10.18260/1-2-8828

Lei, J. & Zhao, Y. (2007). Technology uses and student achievement: A longitudinal study. Computers and Education, 49(2), 284-296.

Love, B.L. (2019). We want to do more than survive: Abolitionist teaching and the pursuit of educational freedom. Beacon Press.

Citation
Format

Plank, H. M. (2022, March), Critical Technology Integration in Pursuit of a Liberatory Engineering Education Paper presented at 2022 ASEE - North Central Section Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 10.18260/1-2--39232

TY - CPAPER
AB - Critical Technology Integration in Pursuit of a Liberatory Engineering Education

Educational scholar Dr. Bettina Love relentlessly advocates for the urgent need for abolitionist teachers who can design curriculum and educational experiences for our students that are liberatory in nature (Love, 2019). A liberatory engineering education has the potential to empower our historically underrepresented students to be the kind of engineers who will collaboratively strive for a just world and solve humanity’s most pressing problems. Technology integration in engineering curriculum can either aid and hinder students’ ability to thrive as humans as well as potential future engineers. After years of seeing the ways technology can be integrated into contexts of all shapes and sizes in K-12, it is clear that engineering educators need to critically evaluate the potential impact classroom technology integration.

Engineering education can look vastly different from one school district to another. For example, some schools may have designated engineering classes while other incorporate engineering concepts and practices into computer science, technology education, STEM, and/or STEAM pathways. Others focus on integrating engineering practices into core subjects like science. Regardless of the grade level, course name, or area of expertise; engineering educators must carefully consider the tradeoffs and synergies of technology integration though the lens of broad, liberatory student outcomes that move beyond academic achievement alone.

There are a number of practical frameworks educators can use as tools to overcome common challenges to technology integration (Groff and Mouza, 2008), build teachers’ capacity to integrate content and technology (Brantley-Dias and Ertmer, 2013), and determine the level of technology needed to improve various student outcomes (Davies and West, 2013). However, these tools are often aimed towards student academic achievement outcomes alone (Lei and Zhao, 2007).

Engineers of 2030 need the tools to achieve academically as well as to communicate effectively, grow personally, critically evaluate tradeoffs and synergies, and gain access to pathways of opportunity in the field (Gunn, 2000; 2021). One step towards a liberatory engineering education is us as educators to realign our philosophy of technology integration in “pursuit of educational freedom” (Love, 2019).

When designing a K-12 engineering curriculum, it is important for us to continuously ask- when does technology integration enhance or hinder our students’ ability to thrive as humans and potential future engineers? What does it take to balance technology with authenticity? The purpose of this paper is to provide readers with a front row seat to one educators’ reflection on her evolving understanding of the nuances of determining when technology in engineering education can be liberatory and enhance human flourishing using current literature as well as her positionality and diverse experiences in the field of education. Readers should be able to engage with key questions for reflecting on the relationship between human flourishing and technology integration, consider how to support engineering educators’ development of judgement for technology integration, and take an opportunity to reflect on their own context and evolving understanding of a liberatory engineering education.

Keywords: Engineering Education, Technology Integration, K-12, Liberation

References

Brantley-Dias, L. &amp;amp; Ertmer, P.A. (2013). Goldilocks and TPACK, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(2), 103-128, DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2013.1078615

Davies, R.S. &amp;amp; West, R.E. (2013). Technology integration in schools. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. 841-853

Groff, J. &amp;amp; Mouza, C. (2008). A framework for addressing challenges to classroom technology use. AACE Journal, 16(1), 21-46.

Gunn, C. J. (2021, March), Aiming for a System that Provides Closer to 100% of a Student’s Needs Paper presented at 2021 ASEE North Central Section Conference, University of Toledo, Ohio. https://peer.asee.org/36333

Gunn, C. (2000, June), Utilizing Co Op To Further Liberal Education Within Engineering. Paper presented at 2000 Annual Conference, St. Louis, Missouri. 10.18260/1-2-8828

Lei, J. &amp;amp; Zhao, Y. (2007). Technology uses and student achievement: A longitudinal study. Computers and Education, 49(2), 284-296.

Love, B.L. (2019). We want to do more than survive: Abolitionist teaching and the pursuit of educational freedom. Beacon Press.
AU - Holly Maribeth Plank
CY - Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
DA - 2022/03/18
PB - ASEE Conferences
TI - Critical Technology Integration in Pursuit of a Liberatory Engineering Education
UR - https://peer.asee.org/39232
DO - 10.18260/1-2--39232
ER -