Contributors Michael Alley, The Pennsylvania State University; Cindy Atman, University of Washington; David DiBiasio, Worcester Polytechnic Institute; Cindy Finelli, University of Michigan; Heidi Diefes‐Dux, Purdue University; Anette Kolmos, Aalborg University; Donna Riley, Smith College; Sheri Sheppard, Stanford University; Maryellen Weimer, The Pennsylvania State University; Ken Yasuhara, University of Washington Background Although engineering education has evolved in ways that improve the readiness of graduates to meet the challenges of the twenty‐first century, national and international organizations continue to call for change. Future changes in engineering education should be guided by research on expertise and the learning processes that support its development. Purpose The goals of this paper are: to relate key findings from studies of the development of expertise to engineering education, to summarize instructional practices that are consistent with these findings, to provide examples of learning experiences that are consistent with these instructional practices, and finally, to identify challenges to implementing such learning experiences in engineering programs. Scope/Method The research synthesized for this article includes that on the development of expertise, students' approaches to learning, students' responses to instructional practices, and the role of motivation in learning. In addition, literature on the dominant teaching and learning practices in engineering education is used to frame some of the challenges to implementing alternative approaches to learning. Conclusion Current understanding of expertise, and the learning processes that develop it, indicates that engineering education should encompass a set of learning experiences that allow students to construct deep conceptual knowledge, to develop the ability to apply key technical and professional skills fluently, and to engage in a number of authentic engineering projects. Engineering curricula and teaching methods are often not well aligned with these goals. Curriculum‐level instructional design processes should be used to design and implement changes that will improve alignment.

No abstract

This article critically appraises 'engineering for development' initiatives and seeks to imagine new models of interaction that incorporate social justice goals more effectively. In recent years, interest in engineering for development has surged within engineering communities in the US and around the world. While worthy of recognition and praise for directing engineers' attention to the problems arising from global economic inequity, many engineering-for-development programs share problematic assumptions about technology's role in community development and fail to grapple with the economic and cultural structures that direct (implicitly or explicitly) most development interventions. Using a case study approach, this article draws out some of these assumptions and shows how they impede the achievement of social justice goals -both in the context of specific development interventions as well as in the context of engineering as a professional activity. The first of two cases involves an interdisciplinary collaboration between two universities in Nicaragua and two in the US focused on educational capacity building for product design with an eye to local economic empowerment. Social justice considerations discussed here include power relations throughout the collaboration among individuals and institutionsincluding what constitutes meaningful community involvement -and the economic models assumed when launching products in the marketplace. The second case involves the work of a non-governmental organization in Sri Lanka and its approach to community development through renewable energy technologies. In this case, social justice considerations include questions of control over project decision making as well as power inequities inherent in development assistance. In both cases, concerns of technical functionality tend to occlude social power imbalances and epistemological divergence, leading to projects that inadvertently extend social injustices.

No abstract