What’s in a Name? “Holistic,” Integrative,” and “Integrated” Engineering Education Through the Lens of Fink’s Taxonomy

Abstract

Some educators within engineering have used "holistic," "integrative" and "integrated" frameworks to support their initiatives. They intend to improve the connection between engineering courses, non-technical disciplines and aspects of human dimensions. The problem is that the vocabulary for these frameworks is not wholly shared, and their definitions are usually interchangeable. Associating these terms with their level of integration will facilitate communication between educators. Hence, the purpose of this paper is to explore what definitions authors give to the terms "holistic," "integrative" and "integrated" when used as frameworks, and to analyze their level of integration when compared to Fink's taxonomy. The conclusion was that "holistic" tended to incorporate most aspects of Fink’s taxonomy, "integrative" was more concerned with the integration of interdisciplinary knowledge, and "integrated" approaches were more focused on connecting the courses within engineering.