Academic and Professional Values in Engineering Education: Engaging with History to Explore a Persistent Tension

IF 2 3区 工程技术 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
K. Edström
{"title":"Academic and Professional Values in Engineering Education: Engaging with History to Explore a Persistent Tension","authors":"K. Edström","doi":"10.1080/19378629.2018.1424860","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The tension between academic and professional aims of engineering education is a remarkably consistent challenge facing engineering educators. Here, some historical roots of this issue are traced through the life and work of Carl Richard Söderberg (1895–1979), who emigrated from Sweden to the US for an illustrious industrial and academic career. While Söderberg was a proponent for a more science-based curriculum, his rationale was related to solving real professional problems, and he would come to criticise the distancing of engineering education from engineering practice. Söderberg's views are compared to a present-day reform concept for engineering education, the CDIO approach, founded by MIT and three Swedish universities. The similarities show the persistence of the issue, as many of Söderberg's ideals, arguments, and proposed strategies are fully recognisable in the current discussion. Further, Söderberg and CDIO share the ideal of mutually supporting professional and disciplinary preparation, implying that the tension should not be a zero-sum game. The paths to this ideal were different, however, as Söderberg wanted to integrate theoretical aspects to improve an overly practical education, while CDIO is about improving an overly theoretical education by integrating also other necessary professional aspects.","PeriodicalId":49207,"journal":{"name":"Engineering Studies","volume":"10 1","pages":"38 - 65"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/19378629.2018.1424860","citationCount":"15","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Engineering Studies","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2018.1424860","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

Abstract

ABSTRACT The tension between academic and professional aims of engineering education is a remarkably consistent challenge facing engineering educators. Here, some historical roots of this issue are traced through the life and work of Carl Richard Söderberg (1895–1979), who emigrated from Sweden to the US for an illustrious industrial and academic career. While Söderberg was a proponent for a more science-based curriculum, his rationale was related to solving real professional problems, and he would come to criticise the distancing of engineering education from engineering practice. Söderberg's views are compared to a present-day reform concept for engineering education, the CDIO approach, founded by MIT and three Swedish universities. The similarities show the persistence of the issue, as many of Söderberg's ideals, arguments, and proposed strategies are fully recognisable in the current discussion. Further, Söderberg and CDIO share the ideal of mutually supporting professional and disciplinary preparation, implying that the tension should not be a zero-sum game. The paths to this ideal were different, however, as Söderberg wanted to integrate theoretical aspects to improve an overly practical education, while CDIO is about improving an overly theoretical education by integrating also other necessary professional aspects.
工程教育中的学术和职业价值观:与历史接触,探索一种持久的张力
摘要工程教育的学术目标和专业目标之间的紧张关系是工程教育工作者面临的一个非常一致的挑战。在这里,这个问题的一些历史根源可以追溯到卡尔·理查德·索德伯格(1895-1979)的生活和工作,他从瑞典移民到美国,从事了杰出的工业和学术生涯。虽然Söderberg是一个更基于科学的课程的支持者,但他的基本原理与解决真正的专业问题有关,他会批评工程教育与工程实践的距离。Söderberg的观点被比作当今工程教育的改革理念,即由麻省理工学院和三所瑞典大学创立的CDIO方法。这些相似之处表明了这个问题的持久性,因为Söderberg的许多理想、论点和拟议的策略在当前的讨论中都得到了充分的认可。此外,Söderberg和CDIO有着共同支持专业和学科准备的理想,这意味着紧张局势不应该是零和游戏。然而,实现这一理想的途径是不同的,因为Söderberg希望整合理论方面来改善过度实践的教育,而CDIO则希望通过整合其他必要的专业方面来改善过于理论化的教育。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Engineering Studies
Engineering Studies ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
17.60%
发文量
12
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Engineering Studies is an interdisciplinary, international journal devoted to the scholarly study of engineers and engineering. Its mission is threefold: 1. to advance critical analysis in historical, social, cultural, political, philosophical, rhetorical, and organizational studies of engineers and engineering; 2. to help build and serve diverse communities of researchers interested in engineering studies; 3. to link scholarly work in engineering studies with broader discussions and debates about engineering education, research, practice, policy, and representation. The editors of Engineering Studies are interested in papers that consider the following questions: • How does this paper enhance critical understanding of engineers or engineering? • What are the relationships among the technical and nontechnical dimensions of engineering practices, and how do these relationships change over time and from place to place?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信