Folks, we have had our last class, we shared our videos with the public, and final grades have been uploaded. Thanks so much for a fun semester, and enjoy your final youtube video products, as well as the other pieces of writing you have generated this semester. Good luck in the spring!
As we approach the completion of our course, I was re-reading the Jamieson et al. ASEE paper and getting excited about its contents. Reflecting on the structure and flow of the course, I was wondering if a re-ordering of the topics might be beneficial, especially in light of the diversity of the students. Many have never been exposed to educational philosophy (or any philosophy, for that matter), and experienced some confusion when this topic was presented first. I was thinking that it might be better to present some of the material on the history of engineering and engineering education first to establish a context to which the subsequent topics could then refer. With the historical framework studied first, then the philosophical piece could be studied as it has related to that framework and influenced it over time. This type of context could have helped focus better on those philosophies that have influenced this historical development, or that could be applied to future development. I know from my own philosophical studies over the years that the context in which the study takes place is a key element in determining the direction that the study takes.
In class today, it seemed as though most people agreed that we should submit the feedback that you generated in class last week. Bri volunteered to champion the writing to submission, and Beth and Junaid agreed to help if we could do this in January. Most people agreed they could help if we did it in January, rather than yet this semester.
It also seemed there was agreement (I hope I read this correctly) in submitting the feedback both online and to Dean Jamieson directly, with perhaps a cover letter prefacing the feedback.
Things to do include
put together an email list yet this semester
drafting a cover letter
revising the material written last week to be consistent in format and voice, no bullets etc.
getting everyone's feedback, if it's going to come from the class
actually submitting the final version. (W00T!)
Robin and I want to offer our availability to look at a draft, but we don't want to block the process, and offer it only if you collectively want our critical eye. We're also fine if you'd like to just shepherd this through on y'alls own. We would like a copy of this when you're all done just so we can bask in your amazingness. :-D
Okay - came across this intersting conference - see a short overview below
Recent key macro studies agree that scientific research is increasingly entangled in various societal rationales. On the one hand, these analyses should be understood within the context of the growing importance attributed to scientific and technological innovation for shaping contemporary societies. On the other hand, society's readiness to contribute to an innovation-friendly climate is considered a key-asset for materializing this imagined progress. For both issues, the human side of science, thus researchers and their way of doing research, their values and their readiness to engage with both science and society, is perceived as essential. As this unfolds on a global scale, it is interesting to observe within research policy and science institutions the convergence of various discourses that stress and imagine what seem to be the key values or myths guiding research today: excellence, accountability, mobility, flexibility, ethical conduct, societal relevance or application orientation, to mention but a few. However, far too little analytic attention has been devoted to (1) how these broad and ostensibly universal notions impinge on different work and knowledge production cultures, (2) how specific local histories and contingencies play out in practice, (3) how these global changes get refracted locally and personally, and (4) how all this re-frames what being a researcher today actually means. This lack seems astonishing given the importance the 'human factor' is attributed in current policy discourses around innovation.