The Imperative to Move toward a Dimension of Care in Engineering Education

Autor/inn/en	Gunckel, Kristin L.; Tolbert, Sara
Titel	The Imperative to Move toward a Dimension of Care in Engineering Education
Quelle	In: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55 (2018) 7, S.938-961 (24 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (Gunckel, Kristin L.) ORCID (Tolbert, Sara)
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0022-4308
DOI	10.1002/tea.21458
Schlagwörter	Stellungnahme; Engineering Education; Science Instruction; Standards; Elementary Secondary Education; Guidelines; Neoliberalism; Criticism; Social Influences; Political Influences; Problem Solving; Justice; Ethics; Feminism; Empathy; Caring; Educational Change; Power Structure; Social Differences; Energy; Food; Cost Effectiveness; Design; Learning Activities; Teaching Methods + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Ingenieurausbildung; Teaching of science; Science education; Natural sciences Lessons; Naturwissenschaftlicher Unterricht; Standard; Richtlinien; Neo-liberalism; Neoliberalismus; Kritik; Sozialer Einfluss; Political influence; Politischer Einfluss; Problemlösen; Gerechtigkeit; Ethik; Feminismus; Empathie; Care; Pflege; Sorge; Betreuung; Bildungsreform; Sozialer Unterschied; Energie; Lebensmittel; Kosten-Nutzen-Analyse; Kosten-Nutzen-Denken; Lernaktivität; Teaching method; Lehrmethode; Unterrichtsmethode
Abstract	The push for STEM has raised the visibility of engineering as a discipline that all students should learn. With the release of the "Framework for K-12 Science Education" and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), engineering now has an official place in the science curriculum. In both the "Framework" and the NGSS, engineering is framed as a way to solve the world's greatest problems. Despite this potential, there are troubling aspects in the way that the "Framework" and NGSS present engineering and how engineering is taken up in the curriculum. In this article, we use critiques of technocracy, utilitarianism, and neoliberalism to analyze the portrayal of engineering in the Framework and NGSS. We claim that the "Framework" and NGSS promote a technocratic perspective that engineered solutions can all problems, ignoring the socio-political foundations of many of the world's most pressing problems. Furthermore, both standards documents reflect a utilitarian ethic that promotes all progress as good and ignores issues of justice. Lastly, the "Framework" and NGSS betray neoliberal foundations that undermine education and engineering as public goods. To address some of these issues, others have argued for a greater emphasis on ethics. In response, we raise cautions because ethical framings present further intractable dilemmas. Instead, we draw on feminist theory to argue for reframing engineering education around an ethos of empathy and care. We call for a dimension of care that situates design problems in the full socio-political context and centralizes issues of justice. We provide an illustration of how an NGSS example activity for designing solar cookers could incorporate a dimension of care that addresses issues of harm, power and inequality, and ecological (in)stability to provide students with opportunities to weigh and take responsibility for the real costs and benefits of their designs. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2020/1/01