Philosophy and Sociology and the Aims of the Engineering Curriculum

Abstract

The purpose of this Chapter is to illustrate the function of philosophy, and to a lesser degree sociology and social psychology, in screening aims and objectives (outcomes). A distinction is made between philosophy per se, and operational or working philosophy. By the latter is meant the value system that drives a particular curriculum, syllabus, course or training session. Many articles about new courses describe the philosophy that drives the program or course. Illustrations are given of such philosophies. The need to define a philosophy or rationale is an important drive in the development of new courses. At a more fundamental level, engineering educators have sought to develop an understanding of the process of engineering from a philosophical base. Koen's (1987) design method has a profound epistemological base. However, there has been no agreement about the need for a philosophy of engineering, (in the same way that there has been about a philosophy of science, that can be applied to teaching in spite of attempts by several engineers to try to write such a philosophy. Is there a case for developing a history and philosophy of engineering that can be used in the teaching of engineering and technological literacy? Matthews (2000) recent study of the history and philosophy of the pendulum as a contribution to science literacy is cited as an analogue. It remains to be seen if Koen's development of his philosophy will firmly establish the case for a philosophy of engineering education (Koen, 2003). At the heart of philosophy as it is applied in education is epistemology. The epistemology we have, even though we may be unaware that we have an epistemology, together with the values we hold are primary drives in the approaches we adopt to teaching and learning. This point is illustrated in some detail by contrasting constuctivism with realism. In the United States, and elsewhere, constructivism is dominating thinking about education in science in high schools. The origins ofconstructivism are discussed and an alternative position described. Engineering education is also concerned with ethics. Much work undertaken by engineers has an ethical dimension. Discussion about ethics has centered on codes of conduct, on the one hand, and on questions about the nature of truth on the other. Consequently there is a brief repeat of the constructivist/realist debate as it applies in this context. Many papers have heen written on whether or not ethics should be taught and, if it is to be taught, of what it should comprise. This discussion is reviewed. The dimensions of sociology and social psychology considered are, supply and demand, minorities and women, the experience of college, organizational structure, and the humanities. Organizational structure embraces the organization of courses. The Chapter ends with a consideration of some of the implications for teaching that arise from this discussion, and it argues that engineers require a philosophical habit of mind if they are to develop a philosophy of engineering that can be applied to teaching. The Chapter is presented in two parts. The first part deals with philosophical aspects and the second with some sociological dimensions. The end of the first part contains a summary of the recently published White Paper of the Liberal Education Division of the American Society for Engineering Education (Steneck, Olds, and Neeley, 2002).