Advertisement

Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning for Diverse and Sustainable Engineering Education

  • Christine Wächter

Abstract

For several years now, various stakeholders have argued for more interdisciplinarity in engineering education. However, what exactly is meant by that is still debatable. Beginning in the 1970s, a number of schemes have been set up in engineering faculties to practice multi-disciplinary or cross-disciplinary approaches and yet engineering programmes today retain the aura of a purely technical domain. The social content and context of engineering is still not integrated enough and hardly promoted. The majority of study programmes analyzed in the course of the HELENA project have less than 25% non-engineering subjects and the scope of these is mainly limited to management skills.

Keywords

Engineering Education Study Programme Royal Academy Engineering Curriculum Engineering Competency 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission (2010): Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs. Baltimore, MD: ABET, Inc. Available at: www.abet.org/Linked%20Documents-UPDATE/Program%20Docs/abet-tac-criteria-2011-2012.pdf
  2. Beder, Sharon (1989): “Towards a More Representative Engineering Education”. In: International Journal of Applied Engineering Education, 5(2), 173–182. Available at: www.herinst.org/sbeder/engineers/education2.html [11.04.2011]
  3. Bodmer, Christian; Leu, Andrea; Mira, Lukas; Rütter, Heinz (2002): SPINE: Successful practices in international engineering education. Final Report. Available at www.ingch.ch/pdfs/spinereport.pdf [19.04.2011]
  4. Borrego M, Newswander LK. “Characteristics of Successful Cross-disciplinary Engineering Education Collaborations.” Journal of Engineering Education, April. 2008;2008:123–134.Google Scholar
  5. Borrego, Maura; Streveler, Ruth A.; Miller, Ronald, L.; Smith, Karl A. (2008): “A New Paradigm for a New Field: Communicating Representations of Engineering Education Research”. In: Journal of Engineering Education, 97(2), 147–162.Google Scholar
  6. Canadian Engineering Qualification Board (2001): Guideline on the Environment and Sustainability for all Professional Engineers. Available at: www.ccpe.ca/files/guideline_enviro_with.pdf [15.04.2008]
  7. Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (2010): Accreditation Criteria and Procedures. Available at: www.engineerscanada.ca/e/files/Accreditation_Criteria_Procedures_2010.pdf [08.05.2011]
  8. Cowan, Ruth Schwartz (1983): More Work for Mother: The Ironies of Household Technology from the Open Hearth to the Microwave, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, Chandler (1980): “Where did twentieth-century mathematics go wrong?” Paper presented at the joint annual meetings of Society for the History of Technology, History of Science Society, Philosophy of Science Association, and Society for the Social Study of Science, Toronto.Google Scholar
  10. Davis JR. Interdisciplinary courses and team teaching: New arrangements for learning. Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education/Oryx Press; 1995.Google Scholar
  11. Daudt J, Salgado PP. “Creating a woman friendly culture in institutes of higher engineering education.” European Journal of Engineering Education. 2006;30(4):463–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. EESD (Engineering Education in Sustainable Development) (2004): Declaration of Barcelona. Available at: http://eesd08.tugraz.at/pics/declaration_of_barcelona_english.pdf [03.08.2008]
  13. Engineering Council UK (2010): The accreditation of higher education programmes. UK Standard for Professional Engineering Competence. Available at: www.engc.org.uk/ecukdocuments/internet/document%20library/AHEP%20Brochure.pdf [08.05.2011]
  14. Faulkner W. “Dualisms, Hierarchies and Gender in Engineering.” Social Studies of Science. 2000;30(5):759–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Faulkner W. “The Technology Question in Feminism: A View from Feminist Technology Studies.” Women’s Studies International Forum. 2001;24(1):79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gabriele G. “Advancing Engineering Education in a Flattened World.” Journal of Engineering Education. 2005;94(3):285–286.Google Scholar
  17. Gill J, Sharp R, Mills J, Franzway S. “I still wanna be an engineer! Women, education and the engineering profession.” European Journal of Engineering Education. 2009;33(4):391–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Godfroy, Anne-Sophie; Pinault, Cloe; Thaler, Anita; Wächter, Christine (2010): Deliverable D 3.2. Methodological Guidelines. Published in the members area of HELENA website. Available at: www.fp7-helena.org/ [17.09.2010]
  19. Hacker S. “The culture of engineering: Woman, workplace and machine.” Women, Technology and Innovation. 1981;4(3):341–353.Google Scholar
  20. Hacker SL. “Mathematization of Engineering: Limits on Women and the Field.” In: Rothschild J, editor. Machina Ex Dea: Feminist Perspectives on Technology. New York: Pergamon Press; 1983.Google Scholar
  21. Håpnes, Tove; Rasmussen, Bente (1991): “The Production of Male Power in Computer Science”. In: Eriksson, I.V.; Kitchenham, B.A.; Tijdens, K.G. (Eds.): Women, Work and Computerization, Amsterdam, 395–406.Google Scholar
  22. Harding S. The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press; 1986.Google Scholar
  23. Harrison, Gareth P.; Macpherson, D. Ewen; Williams, David A. (2007): “Promoting interdisciplinarity in engineering teaching”. In: European Journal of Engineering Education, 32 (3), 285–293.Google Scholar
  24. Heller S.“Engineering 101: Case Western Reserve University Freshman Engineering Field Service Project.” In: Chronicle of Higher Education, May. 2000;26:A18.Google Scholar
  25. Hynes PH. The Recurring Silent Spring. New York: Pergamon Press; 1989.Google Scholar
  26. Jansen L. Technical Universities Need a Stronger Focus on Education in Sustainable Development - Interview with Leo Jansen, Professor emeritus, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands. GAIA. 2010;19(1):40–43.Google Scholar
  27. Käfer, Jenny; Thaler, Anita; Wächter, Christine (forthcoming): “More and ‘other’ students! How interdisciplinarity influences student populations in IT study programmes in Austria”. In: Bamme, Arno; Getzinger, Günter; Wieser, Bernhard (Eds.): Yearbook. of the Institute for Advanced Studies on Science. Technology and Society, Munich/Vienna: Profil Verlag; 2010.Google Scholar
  28. Kastenhofer K, Lansu A, van Dam-Mieras R, Sotoudeh M. “The Contribution of University Curricula to Engineering Education for Sustainable Development.” GAIA. 2010;19(1):44–51.Google Scholar
  29. Keller EF. A Feeling for the Organism. San Francisco: Freeman; 1983.Google Scholar
  30. Keller EF. Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1985.Google Scholar
  31. Kjersdam F. “Tomorrow’s Engineering Education - The Aalborg Experiment.” European Journal of Engineering Education. 1994;19(2):197–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kolmos, Anette et al. (2007): “Problem-based learning”. In: Tree-Teaching and Research in Engineering in Europe. Available at: www.unifi.it/tree/dl/oc/b5.pdf [19.04.2011]
  33. Lagesen, Vivian Anette; S0rensen, Knut H. (2009): “Walking the line? The enactment of the social/ technical binary in software engineering ”. In: Engineering Studies, 1(2), 129–149.Google Scholar
  34. Lattuca LR, Voight LJ, Fath KQ. “Does interdisciplinarity promote learning? Theoretical support and researchable questions.” In:The Review of Higher Education. 2004;28(1):23–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lehmann M, et al. “Problem-oriented and project-based learning (POPBL) as an innovative learning strategy for sustainable development in engineering education.” In:European Journal of Engineering Education. 2008;33(3):283–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Male SA, Bush MB, Murray K. “Think engineer, think male?” European Journal of Engineering Education. 2009;34(5):455–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mills J, Ayre M. “Implementing an Inclusive Curriculum for Women in Engineering Education.” Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice. 2003;129(4):203–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mills, Julie E.; Ayre, Mary; Gill, Judith (2008): “Perceptions and understanding of gender inclusive curriculum in engineering education”, 36th Annual SEFI conference, 2–5 July 2008, Aalborg Denmark. CD-Rom. Available at: www.sefi.be/wp-content/abstracts/1010.pdf [11.04.2011]
  39. Mills J, Ayre M, Gill J. Gender Inclusive Engineering Education. New York/ London: Routledge; 2010.Google Scholar
  40. Mulder KF. “Engineering curricula in sustainable development. An evaluation of changes at Delft University of Technology.” In: European Journal of Engineering Education. 2006;31(2):133–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. NAE CEE (National Academy of Engineer Committee on Engineering Education) (2004): The Engineer of 2020. Project prospectus. Available at: www.nae.edu/Programs/Education/Activities10374/Engineerof2020/ Engineerof2020Prospectus.aspx [29.01.2010]
  42. Pawley, Alice L. (2004): “The feminist engineering classroom: a vision for future educational innovations”. In: Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference &; Exposition. Available at: http://purdue.academia.edu/AlicePawley/Papers/191025/The_Feminist_Engineering_Classroom_a_Vision_for_Future_Educational_Innovations[11.04.2011]
  43. Peissl, Walter (2008): “Teaching technology assessment (TA): Some experiences”. Paper presented at the EESD (Engineering Education in Sustainable Development) Conference. Graz, September 23.Google Scholar
  44. Pinch T, Bijker W, editors. The Social Construction of Technological Systems. Boston: MIT Press; 1987.Google Scholar
  45. Pritchard J, Baillie C. “How can engineering education contribute to sustainable future?” European Journal of Engineering Education. 2006;31(5):555–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Richter DM, Paretti MC. “Identifying barriers to and outcomes of Interdisciplina- rity in the engineering classroom.” European Journal of Engineering Education. 2009;34(1):29–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rosser SV. Re-Engineering Female Friendly Science. New York/London: Teachers College press; 1997.Google Scholar
  48. Rosser SV. “Will EC 2000 Make Engineering More Female Friendly?” In: Women’s Studies Quarterly. 2001;2001(3&;4):164–186.Google Scholar
  49. Royal Academy of Engineering (2006): Visiting Professors in Integrated System Design: Background to the Scheme. Available at: www.raeng.org.uk/education/vps/systemdesign/background.htm [29.04.2011]
  50. Sanchez, Begoña; Gómez, Araceli; Arrizabalaga, Ezekiela (2011): WP 4 - Country Report: SPAIN. Specific situation in engineering education in Spain. In: Wächter, Christine (Ed., 2011): Deliverable D.4.1. Analysis of country specific case studies. Published in the members’ area of HELENA website. Available at: www.fp7-helena.org [15.04.2011], 254–298.
  51. Schmidt JC. “Interdisziplinäre Technikbildung. Ein programmatischer Entwurf.” In: Technikfolgenabschätzung - Theorie und Praxis. 2009;18(3):48–55.Google Scholar
  52. Shepard K. “Higher education for sustainability: seeking affective learning outcomes.” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2008;9(1):87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Skates GW. “Interdisciplinary project working in engineering education.” European Journal of Engineering Education. 2003;28(2):187–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sotoudeh M. “Introduction: Technical Universities for Sustainable Development - Learning to Deal with Complexity.” GAIA. 2010;19(1):33–36.Google Scholar
  55. Sotoudeh M, Peissl W. “Impact Assessment as a Means to Train Future Engineers for Sustainable Development.” GAIA. 2010;19(1):58–60.Google Scholar
  56. Spinks N, Silburn N, Birchall D. Educating Engineers for the 21st Century: The Industry View. London: The Royal Academy of Engineering; 2006.Google Scholar
  57. Thaler A. “Interdisciplinarities - Students’ Perception of Interdisciplinary Engineering Education in Europe.” In: In: Conference Proceedings for the Gender and Interdisciplinary Education for Engineers - GIEE 2011 HELENA International Conference, Paris, June 23–24.: ; 2011. p. 2011.Google Scholar
  58. VDI - Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (2002): Ingenieure und Ingenieurinnen in Deutschland. Situation und Perspektiven, Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
  59. Wächter, Christine (2005): “A Gendered Look at Interdisciplinary Engineering Education”. In: Bam- mé, Arno; Getzinger, Günter; Wieser, Bernhard (Eds.): Yearbook 2005 of the Institute for Advanced Studies on Science, Technology and Society, Munich/Vienna: Profil Verlag, 469–493.Google Scholar
  60. Wächter, Christine (Ed., 2011): Deliverable D.4.1. Analysis of country specific case studies. Published in the members’ area of HELENA website. Available at: www.fp7-helena.org [15.04.2011]
  61. Wajcman J. Feminism Confronts Technology. Cambridge: Polity Press; 1991.Google Scholar
  62. Winberg C. “Teaching engineering/engineering teaching: interdisciplinary collaboration and the construction of academic identities.” Teaching in Higher Education. 2008;13(3):353–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wulf, William (2000): “The Societal Responsibility of Engineers (and Its Implications for Engineering Education).” The George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering Annual Distinguished Lecture, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, April 25Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Sense Publishers 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christine Wächter
    • 1
  1. 1.Klagenfurt University/IFZ GrazAustria

Personalised recommendations