Academic versus practical debate: a case study in screening

The paper illustrates the contribution which behavioural science can make to the formulation of policy in engineering education. ‘Screening’ is the technique which brings together the philosophy and sociology of education with the psychology of learning in the evaluation of significant aims and objectives. The academic versus practical argument, which has led to many policy decisions, as for example the tripartite system of secondary education and the colleges of advanced technology is screened. It is concluded from a historical analysis that the maintenance of the academic versus practical distinction between courses serves only to preserve status diferentials between institutions and their courses. The idea that there are well defined practical and academic abilities is not supported by psychological evidence. If anything, the spatial ability required for engineering design is also required for the pursuit of mathematics. The school syllabus does little to foster the abilities required for technology. The picture is further complicated by the fact that the personality attributes required for high academic performance may not be those required for successful performance either as a manager or entrepreneur. A case for a diversity of courses in engineering subjects has to be made on grounds other than on simple notions about academic and practical abilities.

[1]  L E Walkup.  Creativity in Science through Visualization , 1965, Perceptual and motor skills.

[2]  John Heywood,et al.  Assessment in higher education , 1978 .

[3]  John Heywood,et al.  Factors influencing attitudes to technology in schools , 1978 .

[4]  A. Mant.  The rise and fall of the British manager , 1977 .

[5]  J. Guilford,et al.  The nature of human intelligence. , 1968 .

[6]  P. Vernon.  The Structure of Human Abilities. , 1950 .

[7]  I. Roberts,et al.  Further education today: A critical review , 1979 .

[8]  F. R. Jevons,et al.  Wealth from Knowledge , 1972 .

[9]  G. Carter,et al.  Assessment of undergraduate electrical engineering laboratory studies , 1980 .

[10]  W. Furneaux,et al.  THE PSYCHOLOGIST AND THE UNIVERSITY , 1962 .

[11]  K. Arrow.  Higher education as a filter , 1973 .

[12]  Percy Dunsheath.  Higher technological education , 1953 .

[13]  John Jewkes,et al.  The Sources of Invention. , 1958 .

[14]  Robert C. Davis,et al.  The Achieving Society , 1962 .

[15]  W. A. Pullman.  Teaching Design to Sandwich Course Students , 1964 .

[16]  E. Furst,et al.  Constructing evaluation instruments , 1960 .

[17]  Frsa H.W. Payne,et al.  Engineering — Our Future , 1980 .

[18]  G. S. Bosworth.  TOWARDS CREATIVE ACTIVITY IN ENGINEERING , 1963 .

[19]  Charles F. Elton,et al.  Students Who Leave Engineering. , 1971 .

[20]  A. Koestler.  The Act of Creation , 1964 .

[21]  W. Bion,et al.  Experiences in groups. , 1961, Human relations; studies towards the integration of the social sciences.

[22]  L. Cronbach.  Essentials of psychological testing , 1960 .

[23]  J. Heywood.  Trends in the supply and demand for qualified manpower in the sixties and seventies , 1974 .

[24]  S. A. Tobias,et al.  The Project Method of Teaching Creative Mechanical Engineering , 1964 .

[25]  P. R. Whitfield.  Creativity in industry , 1975 .