Sending feedback on Jamieson/Lohmann report

So we didn't get to talk about what to do with your draft reply in response to the Jamieson/Lohman report. Let's start getting some thoughts out here first, and then we'll pull it into the beginning of our last class next week.

First, would you like to help create an actual group response that we send in?
If so, tell us why, and what would you like to see in it? And what can you do to help?
If not, tell us why not, and how you might rather participate in the engineering education research community?

Review of literature for synthesis paper

Hi all- I was looking through my notes on the literature and our class discussions; I found some interesting thoughts that I'd like to share.

After reading Layton-Why do other people seem surprised and impressed when I tell them I am in the engineering field?  Does anyone else experience this?  Is it because I am female and white?  Why do people view engineering with such prestige?

Is there a public figure for engineering?  Is this why there is uncertainty among children of what engineering is? 

After reading Gieryn-Boundary work, it is a tool for thinking.  Does it help explain my role in this thing called engineering education?  Does it enable change?

Seely-Is there a good balance between shop culture and school culture?  How do we balance this in engineering labs?

Everyone is NOT an engineer. 

The Inquiring Mind...

So I have often thought that an inquiring mind is the best kind of learner (as Dewey would more than likely agree with me), but lately I have been having doubts. In terms of education, I feel like I am more a "hoarder" - gathering knowledge for its own sake. In many instances it is easier for me to guide inquiry than it is to directly synthesize the information myself. Does this make me more suited to the realm of teaching than learning? It reminds me of the old adage, "those that can't do, teach." It'd be interesting to find out what you all think...

Questions from this week's reading

1. Women's Ways of Knowing Bloom's Taxonomy provides a new perspective to reexamine the pyramid. I never question Bloom's Taxonomy before because it is like the benchmark to guide the instructional design. I agree with the author that Bloom group put less emphasis on students' actual internalization of knowledge, but I think the new module that presented by the women's group not only fit the adult women, but fit a larger population. We do have shy boys in the classrooms, right? I am wondering why the authors only choose women as the target audience, is it because women are more representative? I would suggest this group could conduct the research in a larger and diverse population to see how this module works. What do you guys think?

2. In Perry's model, how did the author determine the nine positions? or do the nine positions just work as scales? I am also curious how the students identified what positions they are in.

Just looking for some feedback

I had a lot of trouble understanding the different views of analytic philosophy. Noddings stated that many educational philosophers consider themselves analytic philosophers by being engaged in conceptual analysis. She also stated that philosophers cannot effectively set aside their values while then engage in analysis. I believe this to be true and a very interesting thought. I pose a question (hoping for feedback), is it better as a researcher to confess your values and base your studies on them or try to research without them?

I was exposed to this type of analysis during my masters program in a qualitative research class. This was discussed but referred to as 'subjective lenses' by Corrine Glesne in Becoming Qualitative Researchers. She expresses embracing the different values and calls them "Subjective I's".

I was wondering about other views on including personal subjectivity into research. Does anyone thing this is good? Or inevitable perhaps. Maybe it is bad?