Recently some leading senior engineering societies have encouraged discussions about the philosophy of engineering that even extend to metaphysics. Authors acting independently have also published substantial papers on the topic. However, little has been written about philosophy and engineering education. The purpose of this discussion is to extend the debate that is emerging in this respect. From the examples given it is argued that just as intending teachers in training are exposed to the philosophy of education so teachers in higher education, in this case engineering, should also be exposed to its study. In short it is argued that engineering educators should have a defensible philosophy of education. The primary focus of the paper is the contribution that philosophy can make to decisions about the curriculum and instruction. The paper begins with a short review of recent developments in the philosophy of engineering. A distinction is made between operational or working philosophy, philosophy and philosophical disposition. Arguments for exposing teachers to the philosophy of education are briefly presented. In considering the curriculum and the aims of engineering it is important to be quite clear about the terms that are used. This point is illustrated with reference to the design of instruction and assessment. In publicly financed higher education it is of importance to maintain an on-going critique of the aims that drive that finance as well as the one-sided criticisms of others. Lists of aims are often contradictory and require in the first instance to be screened by philosophy. The recent study of engineering by Williams points to the need for profound debate about the aims of engineering education. © American Society for Engineering Education, 2008.
[1]
James G. R. Hansen,et al.
Curricular Emphasis in Mechanics: A National Update.
,
1986
.
[2]
C.F. Yokomoto,et al.
Modeling the process of writing measurable outcomes for EC 2000
,
1999,
FIE'99 Frontiers in Education. 29th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. Designing the Future of Science and Engineering Education. Conference Proceedings (IEEE Cat. No.99CH37011.
[3]
Ronald Hansen,et al.
Defining technology and technological education: A crisis, or cause for celebration?
,
1994
.
[4]
E. Furst.
Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives for the Cognitive Domain: Philosophical and Educational Issues
,
1981
.
[5]
Steven L. Goldman,et al.
Why we need a philosophy of engineering: a work in progress
,
2004
.
[6]
B. V. Koen,et al.
Discussion of the Method : Conducting the Engineer's Approach to Problem Solving
,
2003
.
[7]
J. Heywood.
Problems in the evaluation of focussing objectives and their implications for the design of systems models of the curriculum with special reference to comprehensive examinations
,
1989,
Proceedings 1989 Frontiers in Education Conference.
[8]
Paul L. Dressel.
Values Cognitive and Affective
,
1971
.
[9]
J. Heywood.
“Think…about how others think”. liberal education and engineering
,
2007,
2007 37th Annual Frontiers In Education Conference - Global Engineering: Knowledge Without Borders, Opportunities Without Passports.