Treffer: A Conceptual Framework on Imaginative Education-Based Engineering Curriculum
Postsecondary Education
Adult Education
1573-1901
Weitere Informationen
Traditional engineering education (Eng. Ed) has received criticism for restricting student learning and experiences to practical skills development while ignoring the significance of fostering cognitive skills that encourage higher order thinking, criticality, and self-reflexivity. Imaginative education (IE) has emerged as a consideration for replacing such skills focused engineering curricula with interactive, engaging, and student-centered pedagogical approaches. However, existing literature on the topic as well as Egan's (1997) own explanation of the five stages of understanding (somatic, mythic, romantic, philosophic, and ironic) are mainly focused on K-12 contexts, leaving limited resources and insights for higher education contexts. This calls for theoretical and practical expansion of the topic where development and implementation of IE-informed Eng. Ed for adult engineering students remain the focus. To respond to this call, this conceptual paper focuses on two main points. First, it attempts to unpack the theoretical underpinnings of the five stages of IE to understand what each stage means for educators and learners in higher education engineering contexts. Second, after outlining the challenges that traditional Eng. Ed is facing in a globalized world today and the initiatives from the field to address them, it discusses the promises IE can bring to make Eng. Ed more effective, inclusive, and relevant. Overall, the intention in this paper is to turn to the theoretical tensions that may emerge when considering IE as an approach to re-imagine and expand Eng. Ed.
As Provided
AN0178230074;nmo01aug.24;2024Jul05.05:29;v2.2.500
A Conceptual Framework on Imaginative Education-Based Engineering Curriculum
Traditional engineering education (Eng. Ed) has received criticism for restricting student learning and experiences to practical skills development while ignoring the significance of fostering cognitive skills that encourage higher order thinking, criticality, and self-reflexivity. Imaginative education (IE) has emerged as a consideration for replacing such skills focused engineering curricula with interactive, engaging, and student-centered pedagogical approaches. However, existing literature on the topic as well as Egan's (1997) own explanation of the five stages of understanding (somatic, mythic, romantic, philosophic, and ironic) are mainly focused on K-12 contexts, leaving limited resources and insights for higher education contexts. This calls for theoretical and practical expansion of the topic where development and implementation of IE-informed Eng. Ed for adult engineering students remain the focus. To respond to this call, this conceptual paper focuses on two main points. First, it attempts to unpack the theoretical underpinnings of the five stages of IE to understand what each stage means for educators and learners in higher education engineering contexts. Second, after outlining the challenges that traditional Eng. Ed is facing in a globalized world today and the initiatives from the field to address them, it discusses the promises IE can bring to make Eng. Ed more effective, inclusive, and relevant. Overall, the intention in this paper is to turn to the theoretical tensions that may emerge when considering IE as an approach to re-imagine and expand Eng. Ed.
Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
Introduction
Over the years, there have been calls in different disciplines and fields for replacing traditional educational practices that encourage memorization of ideas and reproduction of knowledge with reimagined teaching and learning approaches that focus on critical thinking, problem solution, diversity, and co-production of knowledge (Entwistle, [6]). This has required challenging mainstream systems and thinking models that maintain status quo in teaching and learning practices; discourage creativity, innovation, and inclusivity in pedagogy (Felder, [7]); and continue to believe in the compartmentalization of disciplines where isolation and differentiation from other areas of knowledge remain the goal (Pellmar & Eisenberg, [18]). One development in breaking this status quo has been the exploration of other disciplines and areas of knowledge and how they can be helpful in bringing a change to dominant but less effective pedagogical approaches in certain fields. In this vein for multidisciplinary education, the exploration of learners' mental models and imagination and the ways they can be utilized in teaching and learning has emerged as a consideration (Li et al., [15]; Glenn, [9]; Kleine & Metzker, [13]). According to Li et al. ([15]), "mental models can be defined as a kind of mental representations for a person to understand the external world" (p. 1). As thinking tools, they encourage learners to conceptualize how things may or may not work, thus create strategies or techniques to understand and learn about challenges and brainstorm ideas to solve problems. These models allow learners to utilize cultural tools such as language, numbers, stories, and histories for individual learning by creating a connection between the classroom learning and the outer world to process information, develop concepts, make decisions, and inform actions (Pearson, [17]). This newer approach, proposed by Kieran Egan and known as imaginative education (IE), argues for developing instructional strategies that encourage the utilization of learners' cultural tools and cognitive development in educational activities for knowledge building and skills development (Egan & Chodakowski, [5]). In order to help educators to understand how learners make sense of the world and thus create IE-informed curricula to assist learners during this development, Egan ([4]) outlined five language development stages that learners go through. These stages include somatic (pre-linguistic), mythic (oral language), romantic (written language), philosophic (theoretic use of language), and ironic (reflexive use of language). A summary of these stages is provided in Table 1 followed by a detailed discussion of each stage.
The trend of incorporating IE can also be observed in the field of engineering (Felder, [7]; Glenn, [9]; McAuliffe et al., [16]), which requires its practitioners to be proficient in both scientific knowledge and practical skills. As a multidisciplinary development, IE promises to diversify engineering education (Eng. Ed) with the inclusion of different teaching and learning approaches. These approaches aim to accommodate, utilize, and promote diversity in engineering classrooms, as well as create and implement curricula that are engaging, collaborative, inclusive, and interactive (McAuliffe et al., [16]). However, what remains a tension is how this multidisciplinary expansion, i.e., the incorporation of IE in Eng. Ed, is understood in the field of engineering, what promises this brings to the field, and how its five stages (somatic, mythic, romantic, philosophic, and ironic) can be implemented at higher education level with adult learners. In other words, there is a need to discuss the theoretical and practical issues in the creation of an IE-informed Eng. Ed approach. Theoretically, it would ask: How are mental models and their significance understood in engineering? What cultural and cognitive tools are recognized or can be utilized as important part of Eng. Ed? What skills and competencies characterize
Table 1 Developmental stages of understanding in an adult engineering student
<sups>1</sups>Multiple perspectives encourage flexibility in appreciating different views and/or ways of doing things without strictly following a particular approach as a universal practice <sups>2</sups>The concept of net-zero motivates the thinking of a binary structure between energy use and energy generation with a building, where learners can imagine how energy use in a building can be brought to the net-zero level <sups>3</sups>For example, people can indicate that they are thermally comfortable when dinning in an outdoor area, where the air temperature may not be ideal for thermal comfort. Perceptional issues such as expectations and emotions can affect how people indicate their thermal comfort
In order to contribute to the theoretical development that supports the incorporation of IE in Eng. Ed, this conceptual paper will focus on two main points. First, it attempts to unpack the theoretical underpinnings of the five stages of IE to understand what each stage means for educators and learners. This will be done with a special focus on Eng. Ed as well as the diverse student population that comprises contemporary engineering classrooms. Second, after outlining the challenges that the current Eng. Ed is facing in a globalized world and the initiatives from the field to address them, it discusses the promises IE can bring to make Eng. Ed more effective, inclusive, and relevant. Since IE argues for utilizing cultural and cognitive tools, it may allow integrating the diversity and multiplicity of skills brought by the engineering students and thus producing imaginative engineers who are able to use their mental models to develop engineering skills and (re-)imagine the field of engineering as well as their practices as engineers from a diverse perspective. Overall, the intention in this paper is to turn to the theoretical tensions that may emerge when considering IE as an approach to re-imagine and expand Eng. Ed.
Theoretical Underpinnings of IE and Its Stages
IE is greatly influenced by Vygotsky's socio-cultural theory where social factors such as people (i.e., teachers, mentors, peers), events (cultural and religious celebrations), and groups (political or social affiliations) contribute to human development. This is with the acknowledgement that these resources and how they aid individual learning differ from culture to culture (Vygotsky, [23]). This means that different people in different cultural settings may draw upon different cultural tools to develop higher order functions. Realizing the complexity and diversity of contemporary educational settings created by transculturalism and globalization, Egan expanded Vygostky's and other educational theorists' works to propose a new educational approach that recognizes "the nature of the connection between cultural development in the past and educational development in the present" and then provides "practical curricula and teaching methods clearly appropriate to modern social conditions and requirements" ([4], p. 27). For this, he considered imagination and language development as main components of IE.
With a focus on the engagement of learners' imagination in learning, IE aims to enhance their educational performance through deep learning. McAuliffe et al. ([16]) defined deep learning as "the ability to extract knowledge learned in one situation and use it in new and different situations" (p. 2). This deep learning, infused with intellectual tools that are developed by individuals through evolution and cultural history, allows learners to operationalize previously learnt knowledge and skills, available in their surroundings, for further development and knowledge building (McAuliffe et al., [16]). For Egan ([4]), language, as a cultural tool, and an individual's linguistic competence play a pivotal role in this coalescence. He used five distinct (but often interconnected) stages of language development as a way to explain how learners can make sense of the world around them and how this understanding can be incorporated into curriculum for better outcomes. These included somatic (pre-linguistic), mythic (oral language), romantic (written language), philosophic (theoretic use of language), and ironic (reflexive use of language).
Previous research on the incorporation of IE in Eng. Ed (e.g., McAuliffe et al., [16]) and Egan's own explanation (Egan, [4]; Egan & Chodakowski, [5]) mainly focuses on the implementation of IE in K-12 settings. With an acknowledgment of the significance of this body of work, one constructive critique on its limitation is that it leaves educators in higher education, especially adult Eng. Ed contexts with limited support to envision how they can integrate IE into their curriculum. Since adult learners already speak at least one language and have developed some understanding of their surroundings through this language before they enroll in undergraduate/graduate programs, some early stages of understanding outlined and expanded upon by Egan and others (e.g., somatic [pre-linguistic] in K-12 contexts) may not be applicable to adult learners. To help educators in adult Eng. Ed contexts, there is a need to create tasks and activities that recognize prior critical thinking ability of adult engineer students; present advanced and complex ideas that target lower as well as higher learning objectives on the Bloom's taxonomy; and support learners in achieving higher order thinking. For this purpose, Vygotsky's zone of proximal development (ZPD) can be very useful in making adult learners work on projects that can be completed individually as well as through an external input (Vygotsky, [23]). This would require a renewed approach to interpreting and implementing IE in a higher education context to see how each stage can relate to adult engineering learners. This is what we aim to achieve in this paper.
With this realization, we wanted to explain the theoretical underpinnings of the five stages of IE with adult students, Eng. Ed, and diverse classrooms in mind. This will allow us to provide specific examples from a particular age group and then connect to this explanation later in this paper when we outline some guidelines for engineering educators who may be interested in considering IE as a way to tap on the imaginative competence of their students so that these students can achieve the targeted attributes of an engineering graduate (curricular objectives) as well as become life-long imaginative engineers (beyond school curricula). The analogy we will use is that of a fresh engineering graduate who has recently enrolled in an engineering program and will be learning about different fields and concepts of engineering. Since adult students know at least one language, if not multiple, we will assume engineering and its discipline-specific language and concepts as alien/target for this student. As language is the medium through which learners develop their understanding of disciplinary concepts and showcase this understanding during assessment, the development of discipline-specific language and how it may impact student learning are given special attention. This will help explain the five understanding stages and how adult engineering students can progress through an IE-inspired curriculum (starting from somatic stage to reach ironic level) while utilizing their cultural tools and developing cognitive skills. The examples we draw upon will come from different subjects and topics related to the field of engineering.
In Table 1, we outline the five stages of understanding and how they may develop in an adult engineering student. To develop this table, we have used the literature available on the development of these stages in a child (see Egan & Chodakowski, [5]; Glenn, [9]; McAuliffe, [16]; Pearson, [17]) but interpreted it from an adult perspective where adulthood (age, interests, hobbies), prior language development, and some knowledge of the world have already happened and the adult learner will be developing new (engineering) skills based upon previous learning. The purpose of Table 1 is not to do a comparative analysis of understanding development between a child and an adult; rather, the intention is to use the explanation and examples provided by Egan ([4]) and others to interpret them by keeping in mind how an adult would develop these stages in an engineering program.
As it can be seen in Table 1, somatic, the first stage of understanding, can be interpreted as the pre-discipline-specific language development stage in an adult engineering student. Although previous schooling and life experiences may have oriented a newcomer (of course, not all) with different concepts and terminologies of the field, a fresh engineering student can be placed at this stage as they may not be familiar with all the basic and discipline-specific vocabulary necessary to understand engineering concepts and functions at an earlier stage in the program. To help the student connect previous language skills and learning with future specialized language, the cognitive tools that can be used are senses (touch, smell, taste, hear, and sight), first language (L1), and references to different concepts in the student's cultural/family learning. The objective would be to facilitate learning even before acquiring discipline-specific language (Egan, [4]). For example, civil engineering focuses on the construction, design, and maintenance of infrastructures like roads, bridges, airports, and dams (Wright, [25]). Possible lessons can be designed where students can take field trips to experience and learn about these infrastructures with their senses (e.g., visuals and touch). Work-integrated learning experience can be designed for students to physically perceive how engineering work operates in practice. Similarly, students can also make use of their L1 to understand and demonstrate their understanding of different concepts in solving challenges like road expansion in a congested area, transportation issues in a metropolitan city, and betterment of irrigation system in short time. Research on language teaching and learning points to the ways L1 knowledge can be utilized for learning the target language (Raza et al., [21]). In this regard, localized engineering work and examples such as the Great Wall of China, the Panama Canal, and Eiffel Tower can be used as reference works for modeling, comparison, and contrast. As Egan ([4]) argued that learning can happen before the acquisition of speech/language, a fresh engineering student can learn engineering concepts even before acquiring specialized language. Through the use of non-linguistic resources such as senses as well as L1 support, learning can be facilitated at an early stage in adult learner as well.
The second stage of learning, mythic understanding, is characterized by the development and ability to use oral language to understand the world around us. For Egan ([4]), this "
With further maturation from the somatic stage, a mythic thinker is able to develop and use basic engineering language, connect it to their L1 and employ non-linguistic repertoire to understand, and explain more difficult concepts orally. Adapting Egan's conception of language, we can think of engineering language both as a communication system like English that is commonly used in educational spaces globally as well as other forms of language that are common in different cultural settings such as narratives, images, numbers, gestures, stories, and fantasies (McAuliffe et al., [16]; Pearson, [17]). As a fresh engineering student develops mythic understanding, they can draw upon literal and cultural linguistic practices to develop higher order thinking. For example, when performing binary structuring, they can differentiate between concepts in physics such as absolute zero (− 273.15 °C) versus zero degree Celsius (0 °C) and laminar versus turbulent flow in fluid mechanics. To enhance higher order thinking, students can also be asked to think about the outcomes of binary opposites. For instance, when comparing a good versus bad engineering design, they can discuss the outcomes of a bad design and how this can lead to the collapse of buildings, human and financial loss, etc. When fantasizing about objects that do not yet exist, a mythic thinker can use narratives to outline possible technologies in the future and use cultural knowledge to explore how non-existent technologies impact cultures and societies. Similarly, as they engage in abstract thinking, they can use cultural tools like stories to understand the ethical obligation between individuals and society where the individual is an engineer and the society is the people this engineer would work for/with. Additionally, the development and use of metaphorical language to describe abstract ideas is another feature of mythic understanding. As engineering language becomes more literal and sophisticated, the student starts thinking about and describing engineering concepts and objects using idiomatic and complex language. Finally, mythic understanding also involves the use of rhythms, narratives, stories, and images to aid memorization (e.g., remembering formulas, numbers, and names), perform mental imaging (e.g., pictures of objects, maps, buildings), connect informal learning at home with class discussions (e.g., storytelling and its impact on listeners, narratives as informal teaching approaches, games and their relation to teamwork), and use cultural arts and performances such as dance, music, and painting to understand the concepts of movement, pleasure, expression, and meaning-making. The student's cultural tools such as learning methods, L1, contextual needs, and pervious experiences can be utilized to aid mythic understanding of binary structures, fantasy, abstract thinking, and use of literal language, stories, and images.
With additional language development, the student enters into the third stage of understanding, called "romantic" (see Table 1). This phase is also referred to as a written or literacy stage because "writing" at this stage "becomes a part of the process of thinking" (Egan, [4], 76). This requires alphabetic literacy, which is the ability to recognize, connect, and use written letters with spoken sounds. However, for Egan, a bigger concern is how this literacy impacts a learners' cultural and cognitive competence and how it can connect previous learning with future development: "what
Graph: Fig. 1 Romantic understanding in adult engineering students
An adult engineering student, for instance, would be developing engineering literary at romantic stage by learning about written rules, logics, values, and practices specific to engineering discipline and will be using them to understand and analyze the world around them. A reorientation of alphabetic understanding from an adult engineering student's perspective would mean the learning of basic principles of engineering that are important to understand how engineering as a field works. Likewise, in the field of science education, considering the entire lifecycle of the production of science information is important. According to Howell and Brossard ([11]), science literacy "includes how the scientific community produces science information, how media repackage and share the information, and how individuals encounter that information and form opinions on it" (p. 1). Transferring this understanding to engineering education, this stage goes beyond accepting reality as it is since individuals are required to form their own opinions of information that they see around them, as in mythic stage, to wondering about this reality and how it exists. This will include understanding things in their surroundings, the relationship between things and humans, role and responsibility of engineers in the society (individually and collectively), how these roles are conceptualized, and how they help engineers perform their roles. Comparing this to the scientific field, although science knowledge has been described as "trustworthy science-related information," i.e., scientific facts, that is "needed for informed decision-making, both in their everyday lives and as citizens," the complexities of science knowledge reproduction have resulted in the need for people to develop the understanding of the "elements that shape the production of scientific knowledge, such as the people, institutions, training resources, methods, and norms of science" (Howell & Brossard, p. 2). In other words, a discipline-oriented approach to imagining reality and its contribution to human life will be of focus at this stage (Kleine & Metzker, [13]). To make this literacy process more meaningful and interactive, students' cultural experiences and cognitive tools can be incorporated into literacy by encouraging them to think of the reasons why certain things are done the way they are (McAuliffe et al., [16]), which is similar to people needing to make the connections between science and the society. This will allow students to develop an understanding of the reality that is reflective of modern literacy traditions but also informed by the context in which they grew up or work in as well as the historical currency of things in their surroundings (Egan, [4]). Thus, literacy will be linked through reasoning with previous learning, current developments, and future objectives for higher order thinking (see Fig. 1). Additionally, they could also question, reflect, and relearn what they have previously learned to develop a better understanding of the reality. For example, when learning about engineering rules, laws, and ethics as part of coursework, they can discuss the individual and collective responsibilities of engineers, how they differ across societies, and how engineering principles shape these relations while contributing to socio-economic development of a country (Kleine & Metzker, [13]). Similarly, they can discuss the role of famous engineers in the history as heroes/role models and how their contributions to contemporary work in the field of engineering. Students can also link course goals and objectives with their hobbies, interests, and future plans to make a better use of the course materials and connect them with practical uses. Since romanticizing involves constructing reality through reasoning, students can also explore areas where legal and ethical decision-making is important. For instance, the increasing use of artificial intelligence has raised ethical questions about data collection, privacy, and security (UNESCO, [22]). While engineers continue to expand on the use of artificial intelligence, they can also think about ways to ensure that issues of privacy, security, and confidentiality are carefully considered.
While oral traditions introduce a student to the existence of different realities at mythic stage, a romantic thinker focuses on the relationship between these realities through the use of alphabetic literacy or what we called a knowledge of the basic principles of engineering earlier in this paper. As seen in Fig. 1, the use of reasoning is a significant development at romantic stage. As human brain grows, it starts to question the existence of things and indicates the beginning of philosophic stage. It wonders why certain things such as principles, societies, designs, disciplines, and traditions exist the way they are and whether the reality they have constructed, either through reasoning or the knowledge that informed this reasoning, is the ultimate and the true reality. Since there is a search for authority and truth, Egan argued that "the Philosophic mind focuses on the connections among things, constructing theories, laws, ideologies, and metaphysical schemes to tie together the facts available to the student" ([4], p. 121). The philosophic understanding is a further extension of mythic and romantic stages (see Table 1). An adult engineering student at this stage will further refine his conception of reality by paying attention to how this reality is constructed (e.g., design decisions), what contributed to its construction, and how each part of this reality is joined together to make the whole (e.g., heating and cooling system in a building). For instance, while understanding the role of engineers in society, the student will also try to understand the parameters and their establishment and interpretation. Such an understanding can help a student to learn how decisions are made by engineers and why there is a need to be aware of dominant decision-making processes in the field. Similarly, the theories that inform the construction of these roles will be explored through different cultural, disciplinary, and contextual lenses. This will allow the student to dig deep into the parts that construct the whole. In doing so, the student may look at other disciplines (e.g., math and physics), cultures, and histories and then examine how they help understand engineering concepts, thus turning to the interdisciplinary interpretation of engineering laws, theories, ideologies, and schemes (Egan, [4]).
Ironic understanding is the highest level of understanding outlined by Egan ([4]). With progression from somatic stage to mythic, romantic, and philosophic (see Table 1), an ironic mind involves in the critical evaluation of knowledge development as well as its processes (see Fig. 2). While doing this, the focus is not only on finding flaws and limitations of theories but also to contribute to these limitations for expansion of knowledge building methods and tools. For instance, the orality developed at the mythic stage about society and its members and further enhanced at romantic level through literacy is examined at the philosophic stage to see how social reality is understood and what contributes to this reality formation. Expanding this epistemological advancement with criticality, an ironic thinker examines dominant social theories to understand their limitations as well as points to different ways of addressing these limitations. An example of this can be a critical evaluation of contemporary design theories, rules, and regulations that define engineering practices, the knowledge they build, the limitations of this knowledge, and what needs to be done to diversify and advance such theories. To elaborate further, contemporary design theories and practices tend to provide prescriptive information for practitioners and learners by disregarding their experiences and cognitive skills for understanding. Thus, one advancement can be to examine how designers perceive and process information in their work (e.g., study of design cognition in Ball and Christensen, [1]) and guide engineering students in professional practices according to their experiences and cognitive skills at their learning stage.
Graph: Fig. 2 Ironic understanding and reflexivity in engineering students
In addition to the discipline, an ironic thinker also adopts a critical gaze for self-evaluation. Through reflexiveness and mental flexibility, the understanding of reality developed during earlier stages of mental development gets relooked at ironically. The objective is to employ multiple perspectives to develop an understanding of the reality that is reflective of self-development and external input through discipline-specific literacy but not committed to a particular way of thinking. Egan defined this practice as the "reflexiveness on our own thinking and a refined sensitivity to the limited and crude nature of the conceptual resources we can deploy in trying to make sense of the world" ([4], p. 155). An ironic mind is ready to acknowledge that they know very little about their discipline, there is a lot left to learn, and thus, there is openness to exploring new venues to expand truth and reality. For this purpose, an interdisciplinary approach can be adopted that helps re-evaluate knowledge development during earlier stages of understanding (e.g., romantic and philosophic) while considering how their current conception of reality could have been different had a cross-cultural or a cross-disciplinary perspective been adopted. For instance, language, either at mythic stage (oral) or romantic stage (written), can shape human understanding in particular ways. Research on language and perception of reality (e.g., Raza & Chua, [20]) points to the ways morpho-syntactic choices create particular realities and thus influence human thinking and observation about these realities. Reflecting upon the ways discipline-specific language shaped their understanding at earlier stages and how this understanding could have been different had a cross-cultural or an interdisciplinary approach been employed, an ironic engineer can expand existing literacy practices in the field of engineering by arguing for the incorporation of multiple perspectives and languages. For example, engineering conventions such as management systems, standards, and roles may differ across different cultures and contexts. Being aware of these differences and the reasons behind their existence may make an ironic thinker better informed about the diversity in the field of engineering. Such a reflective practice does not discourage association with a particular theory, hero, idea, or practice, but it invites acknowledging the significance and importance of other fields and venues of knowledge so that there is a continuation of knowledge expansion from diverse disciplines, fields, and cultures. As Egan put it, "Ironic understanding involves removing the commitment to simple truth of general schemes" ([4], p. 157). The flexibility in interpreting and developing upon diverse perspectives recognizes mental ability to consult and develop upon multiple sources for knowledge production and higher order thinking.
Status of Contemporary Engineering Education in View of IE
In this section, we want to interpret the status of contemporary engineering education from the lens of IE. In contrast to "contemporary," traditional engineering education can be interpreted as the "applied science" tradition, which focuses on the learning of scientific foundation before working on engineering applications. In view of IE, this tradition works like asking students to develop the philosophic mind (i.e., scientific foundation) without prior stages of understanding. Besides the theoretical argument (e.g., traditional engineering education versus IE), industry is one stakeholder that is concerned that engineering graduates might not acquire necessary skills for professional practice (e.g., design and teamwork) under the traditional engineering education (Lang et al., [14]). This partly motivates a shift to contemporary engineering education.
We mark the starting point of contemporary engineering education as the shift of the accreditation focus from curricular requirements (e.g., what technical content is required) to learning outcomes (i.e., what skills of graduates are needed) in around year 2000 (Prados et al., [19]). This shift was initiated in the USA and has a global influence. For example, the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) specifies twelve (12) graduate attributes[1] to define the expected characteristics of engineering graduates. Engineering schools need to provide information and evidence that their graduates have acquired knowledge and skills in view of twelve graduate attributes to receive accreditation for their programs. Some of these graduate attributes cannot be easily "taught" in a traditional way such as design, teamwork, professionalism, and life-long learning. Thus, engineering schools need to explore more innovative pedagogical approaches. Froyd et al., [8]) has outlined the historical development of contemporary engineering education with the highlighted shifts of the (re-)emphasis of design, the application of education research, and the adoption of information technology. Typical pedagogical approaches in contemporary engineering education include design education (Dym et al., [3]), project-based learning (Guo et al., [10]), and experiential learning (Jamison et al., [12]; Woodcock et al., [24]).
Overall, contemporary engineering education should have improved both learning outcomes for professional practice and student experiences. At the same time, we notice that it has also been much focusing on "outcomes" (e.g., practical skills) with less emphasis on "understanding" (e.g., cognitive skills). One possible pitfall is that students could treat practical skills as the final goal of their education with less recognition of cognitive skills that are important for their career development (e.g., system thinking and critical thinking). In this view, IE can contribute to engineering education in two aspects. First, the classification of understanding in IE can help organize pedagogical approaches and cognitive skills in the context of engineering education. For example, design competitions for experiential learning can be classified for the somatic mind, while the training of the ironic mind can support critical thinking. Second, the progression of understanding in IE implicates a scaffolding strategy for cognitive skills in engineering education. In the next section, we will discuss how IE can be applied for engineering education.
The Way Forward: Imaginative Engineers
Developing upon our interpretation of IE and its five stages from an adult engineering student perspective and a discussion on the pitfalls of traditional Eng. Ed, in this section, we outline some ways forward for Eng. Ed to consider IE as a pedagogical approach. This approach may allow developing practical skills such as digital literacy, project management, and communication skills as part of engineering curriculum while paying attention to cognitive skills that require developing an understanding of the relationship between theory and practice (Kleine & Metzker, [13]).
First, there is a need to perceive engineering literacy as a practice of developing discipline-specific skills (e.g., twelve attributes of engineering graduates) but with a focus on critical thinking, deep learning, and problem–solution skills development where imagination, criticality, and reflexivity remain essential. This will require opportunities to develop and interpret targeted skills by linking them with students' socio-cultural experiences and diverse backgrounds. As Egan ([4]) argued, the infusion of
Second, since contemporary engineering classrooms are an amalgamation of multiculturalism and diversity, issues of inclusivity and equity may emerge if particular mediums of instruction (such as English language) or ways of learning (e.g., mastering scientific foundation before working on engineering applications) dominate teaching and learning. Research on multilingual classrooms, for instance, has pointed to issues of exclusion when monolingualism (i.e., the use of single language like English) is considered the best way to teach (see Raza et al., [21]). Similarly, Egan ([4]) disapproved the idea of mandating certain level of language proficiency before learning can begin. For engineering classrooms, this would mean that students can utilize their L1, informal education, and cultural ways of learning even before (and after) they develop discipline-specific language or basic knowledge of engineering concepts. This would require designing curricular activities that recognize multilingualism as a reality and resource (Canagarajah, [2]; Raza et al., [21]), allow utilization of socio-cultural knowledge and tools for learning (McAuliffe et al., [16]; Pearson, [17]), and incorporate tasks that foster higher order thinking skills such as flexibility, creativity, and foresightedness (Kleine & Metzker, [13]). Such an IE-infused engineering curriculum can follow the five stages of understanding outlined by Egan ([4]) and interpreted from an adult engineering student perspective earlier in this paper. Starting at the somatic stage, content, tasks, and activities can be designed in a way that allow students to engage with course materials even before developing disciplinary language and concepts but using L1 as well as non-linguistic resources such as senses, gestures, and movements as resources. As students develop targeted goals (e.g., graduate attributes), they will continue to benefit from the reasoning, criticality, self-reflexivity, and higher order thinking that IE would promise in an imaginative engineer.
Conclusion
The theoretical argument made in this paper for the consideration of an IE-informed engineering curriculum invites curriculum developers, educators, and policymakers to reconsider traditional Eng. Ed from a multidisciplinary perspective. This perspective encourages exploring and utilizing learners' mental models and socio-cultural experiences as they develop attributes, skills, and knowledge of engineering graduates. For this purpose, students' cultural and cognitive tools such as language, histories, stories, and experiences are connected with modern literacy practices as well as work environments and contexts through reasoning, critical thinking, and self-reflection. The five stages of IE, interpreted from an adult engineering student's perspective in this paper, expand previous work that argues for considering IE as a pedagogical approach in Eng. Ed to foster higher order thinking, interaction, and engagement. By providing insights into how and why IE can be applied in higher education engineering programs, this paper invites teachers, curriculum developers, assessment specialists, and researchers to consider developing and implementing an IE-infused curriculum in their contexts and share findings and examples to contribute to the argument of considering IE as a pedagogical approach in Eng. Ed.
Declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
1 Ball LJ, Christensen BT. Advancing an understanding of design cognition and design metacognition: Progress and prospects. Design Studies. 2019; 65: 35-59. 10.1016/j.destud.2019.10.003
2 Canagarajah S. Translingual practice as spatial repertoire: Expanding the paradigm beyond structuralist orientations. Applied Linguistics. 2018; 39; 1: 31-54. 10.1093/applin/amx041
3 Dym CL, Agogino AM, Eris O, Frey DD, Leifer LJ. Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. The Research Journal for Engineering Education. 2005; 94; 1: 103-120. 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00832.x
4 Egan K. The educated mind: How cognitive tools shape our understanding. 1997; The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226190402.001.0001
5 Egan K, Chodakowski M. Learning to teach, imaginatively: Supporting the development of new teachers through cognitive tools. McGill Journal of Education. 2018; 51; 3: 999-1012. 10.7202/1039625ar
6 Entwistle NHuijser H, Kek MYCA, Padro FF. Research into learning and teaching in universities: A view from the past towards an uncertain future. Student support services. 2022; Springer: 13-33. 10.1007/978-981-16-5852-5_37
7 Felder RM. STEM education: A tale of two paradigms. Journal of Food Science Education. 2021; 20; 8: 8-15. 10.1111/1541-4329.12219
8 Froyd, J. E, Wankat, P. C, & Smith, K. A. (2012). Five major shifts in 100 years of engineering education. Proceedings of the IEEE, 100 (Special Centennial Issue), 1344–1360. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2012.2190167
9 Glenn WJ. Imagine the possibilities: A student-generated unit to inspire creative thought. The English Journal. 2003; 92; 5: 35-41. 10.2307/3650422
Guo P, Saab N, Post LS, Admiraal W. A review of project-based learning in higher education: Student outcomes and measures. International Journal of Educational Research. 2020; 102: 101586. 10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101586
Howell, E. L, & Brossard, D. (2021). (Mis)informed about what? What it means to be a science-literate citizen in a digital world. PNAS, 118(15), 1–8. https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1912436117
Jamison, C. S. E, Fuher, J, Wang, A, & Huang-Saad, A. (2022). Experiential learning implementation in undergraduate engineering education: A systematic search and review. European Journal of Engineering Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2022.2031895
Kleine KLM, Metzker JK. Incorporating Egan's imaginative education into the curriculum and the culture at the post-secondary level. Creative Education. 2012; 3: 746-748. 10.4236/ce.2012.32611
Lang JD, Cruse S, McVey FD, McMasters J. Industry Expectations of New Engineers: A Survey to Assist Curriculum Designers. Journal of Engineering Education. 1999; 88; 1: 43-51. 10.1002/j.2168-9830.1999.tb00410.x
Li, S, Chua, C, Campo, J, & Raza, K. (2022). Mental models and engineering education: A literature review. Proceedings of the 2022 Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) Conference. https://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/PCEEA/article/view/15918
McAuliffe, L, Ellis, G. W, Ellis, S. K, Huff, I, & McGinnis-Cavanaugh, B. (2011). Mysteries and heroes: Using imaginative education to engage middle school learners in engineer. Proceedings for the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition. Smith College. https://scholarworks.smith.edu/egr_facpubs/
Pearson S. Imaginative education engages Aboriginal learners in Prince Rupert. Education Canada. 2010; 49; 5: 26-29
Pellmar TC, Eisenberg L. Bridging disciplines in the brain, behavioral, and clinical sciences. 2000; National Academies Press
Prados JW, Peterson GD, Lattuca LR. Quality assurance of engineering education through accreditation: The impact of Engineering Criteria 2000 and its global influence. Journal of Engineering Education. 2005; 94; 1: 165-184. 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00836.x
Raza, K, & Chua, C. (2022). Global-contextual TESOL leadership in diverse and multi-dimensional contexts: A paradigmatic shift. International Journal of Leadership in Learning, 22(1), 305–339. https://doi.org/10.29173/ijll12
Raza, K, Coombe, C, & Reynolds, D. (2021). Past, present and ways forward: Towards inclusive policies for TESOL and multilingualism. In K. Raza, C. Coombe, & D. Reynolds (Eds.), Policy development in TESOL and multilingualism: Past, present and the ways forward (pp. 1–9). Springer.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2021). Artificial intelligence: Examples of ethical dilemmas.https://en.unesco.org/artificial-intelligence/ethics/cases
Vygotsky LS. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. 1978; Harvard University Press
Woodcock CSE, Callewaert J, Millunchick J. Synthesizing definitions of professional competencies linked to experiential learning in engineering education: A literature review. Journal of Higher Education Theory & Practice. 2021; 21; 4: 123-146
Wright PH. An introduction to engineering. 20023; John Wiley & Sons
Footnotes
Twelve graduate attributes include (1) a knowledge base for engineering, (2) problem analysis, (3) investigation, (4) design, (5) use of engineering tools, (6) individual and teamwork, (7) communication skills, (8) professionalism, (9) impact of engineering on society and the environment, (10) ethics and equity, (11) economics and project management, and (12) life-long learning.
By Kashif Raza; Simon Li and Catherine Chua
Reported by Author; Author; Author