Teaching to Transgress in a Technology and Society Course

Stephanie Hladik

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Portland, Oregon
Publication Date: June 23, 2024
Start Date: June 23, 2024
End Date: July 12, 2024
Conference Session: Transgression, Conflict, and Altruism
Tagged Division: Liberal Education/Engineering & Society Division (LEES)
Tagged Topic: Diversity
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/48072

Request a correction

Paper Authors

biography

Stephanie Hladik University of Manitoba

visit author page

Dr. Stephanie Hladik (she/her) is an Assistant Professor in the Centre for Engineering Professional Practice and Engineering Education at the University of Manitoba. She holds BSc and MSc degrees in Electrical Engineering, as well as a PhD in Learning Sciences, all from the University of Calgary. Her research interests lie at the intersections of design, equity, and education. She is deeply interested in the roles that facilitators (informal educators, teaching assistants, parents, and others) play in the learning process: how they interact with learners, how they view equity in their learning environments, and what roles they can play in the design of innovative educational experiences in engineering. She teaches undergraduate courses in technical communication and technology and society and is interested in how critical pedagogy can be integrated into postsecondary engineering education.

visit author page

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

In Teaching to Transgress, bell hooks shares insights into pedagogy informed by her own history as a student and a postsecondary instructor, as well as anticolonial, feminist, and critical approaches to teaching and learning. hooks (1994) celebrates “teaching that enables transgressions – a movement against and beyond boundaries… that makes education the practice of freedom” (hooks, 1994, p. 12). She highlights the importance of passion, relationality, and criticality to liberatory pedagogy that empowers students to engage deeply and agentively in the classroom. In engineering education, liberative pedagogies have been used to connect course content to students’ experiences, position students as authorities in the classroom, critically discuss issues of ethics and policy, and avoid centering course content around Western notions of engineering (Riley, 2003).

In this paper, I explore the redesign of an undergraduate engineering technology and society course in relation to the idea of liberatory pedagogy in bell hooks’ Teaching to Transgress. As I prepared for my first offering of the course “Technology, Society, and the Future,” I drew upon my experiences in engineering, educational research, and information sciences to shape not only the content of the course (as hooks argues that content changes alone do not result in liberatory pedagogy) but also course structure, assignments, and expectations. I eschewed traditional case studies that portray engineering as objective and apolitical and instead highlighted the work of scholars such as Ruha Benjamin who critically examine the complex relationship between technology and whiteness, sexism, colonialism, and other systems of oppression. Following hooks’ arguments about intellectual authority and legitimacy, I designed assignments such as four-corner debates that required students to defend their own opinions on complex sociotechnical issues that don’t have one “correct” answer – basing their response on scholarly sources as well as their own experiences. Students were also assigned to lead small group discussions which disrupted traditional power dynamics of the instructor as the teacher and the students as passive receivers of knowledge and instead aimed to establish a community of learning in the classroom. Finally, I used written reflection assignments to encourage students to “think critically about [themselves] and [their] lives… to move forward, to change, to grow” (hooks, 1994, p. 202). This critical thinking is imperative for engineering students to meet the existing and emerging sociotechnical challenges of today’s world.

Reflecting on my attempts to cultivate this shift towards transgressive and liberative pedagogy is particularly interesting given the context of my course: one that is mandatory for almost every engineering student at my institution and at the same time is at odds with more traditional engineering pedagogies and technical content that make up the bulk of their academic experiences. Among other emotions, my students and I experienced surprise when viewing an everyday technology such as an airport scanner from a new perspective, as well as uncertainty in how to lead small group discussions around challenging topics. I hope that my lessons learned about “teaching to transgress” in an engineering technology and society course will be useful to instructors of similar courses.

Citation
Format

Hladik, S. (2024, June), Teaching to Transgress in a Technology and Society Course Paper presented at 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Portland, Oregon. https://peer.asee.org/48072

TY  - CPAPER
AB  - In Teaching to Transgress, bell hooks shares insights into pedagogy informed by her own history as a student and a postsecondary instructor, as well as anticolonial, feminist, and critical approaches to teaching and learning. hooks (1994) celebrates “teaching that enables transgressions – a movement against and beyond boundaries… that makes education the practice of freedom” (hooks, 1994, p. 12). She highlights the importance of passion, relationality, and criticality to liberatory pedagogy that empowers students to engage deeply and agentively in the classroom. In engineering education, liberative pedagogies have been used to connect course content to students’ experiences, position students as authorities in the classroom, critically discuss issues of ethics and policy, and avoid centering course content around Western notions of engineering (Riley, 2003). 

In this paper, I explore the redesign of an undergraduate engineering technology and society course in relation to the idea of liberatory pedagogy in bell hooks’ Teaching to Transgress. As I prepared for my first offering of the course “Technology, Society, and the Future,” I drew upon my experiences in engineering, educational research, and information sciences to shape not only the content of the course (as hooks argues that content changes alone do not result in liberatory pedagogy) but also course structure, assignments, and expectations. I eschewed traditional case studies that portray engineering as objective and apolitical and instead highlighted the work of scholars such as Ruha Benjamin who critically examine the complex relationship between technology and whiteness, sexism, colonialism, and other systems of oppression. Following hooks’ arguments about intellectual authority and legitimacy, I designed assignments such as four-corner debates that required students to defend their own opinions on complex sociotechnical issues that don’t have one “correct” answer – basing their response on scholarly sources as well as their own experiences. Students were also assigned to lead small group discussions which disrupted traditional power dynamics of the instructor as the teacher and the students as passive receivers of knowledge and instead aimed to establish a community of learning in the classroom. Finally, I used written reflection assignments to encourage students to “think critically about [themselves] and [their] lives… to move forward, to change, to grow” (hooks, 1994, p. 202). This critical thinking is imperative for engineering students to meet the existing and emerging sociotechnical challenges of today’s world.

Reflecting on my attempts to cultivate this shift towards transgressive and liberative pedagogy is particularly interesting given the context of my course: one that is mandatory for almost every engineering student at my institution and at the same time is at odds with more traditional engineering pedagogies and technical content that make up the bulk of their academic experiences. Among other emotions, my students and I experienced surprise when viewing an everyday technology such as an airport scanner from a new perspective, as well as uncertainty in how to lead small group discussions around challenging topics. I hope that my lessons learned about “teaching to transgress” in an engineering technology and society course will be useful to instructors of similar courses.

AU  - Stephanie Hladik
CY  - Portland, Oregon
DA  - 2024/06/23
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Teaching to Transgress in a Technology and Society Course
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/48072
ER  -