Research in Engineering Education Symposium 2011 - rees2009

Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM) Página 84 de 957
a result of reflection on their past experiences. “Shaping the future” describes this process
of re-framing future goals.
Identity development can be a by-product of these reframing activities. In this paper, we
described how some students appeared to develop greater self-confidence while at the
same time a more comprehensive and balanced understanding of their learning needs
emerges. The processes of shaping the past in portfolio studio and through development
of a professional portfolio often result in a greater sense of accomplishment with respect
to engineering preparedness and an increase in self-confidence. The processes of shaping
the future in portfolio studio and through development of a professional portfolio often
result in a much clearer assessment of what remains to be learned and developed to ready
oneself for an engineering career. In other words, students gain greater appreciation of
themselves as engineers while at the same time gaining a more explicit sense of where
they still come up short with respect to their professional goals. “Shaping the self”
describes this ongoing process of increasing self-confidence.
Implications
The people whom we call engineering students are not coherent, unified selves, though
there is every indication that engineering educators make this assumption. Students can
hold multiple perspectives stemming from their varied backgrounds, as children in
families; as members of a particular race or ethnicity, social class, gender, sexual
orientation; as workers, volunteers, lovers, or enthusiasts (Kilgore, 2004). In engineering
education, as in most majors, students‟ multiple selves are ignored in favor of the
individual whose sole purpose is to logically progress toward some educated endpoint.
Engineering students often are very clear about what they consider engineering
knowledge and what they do not. This notion is introduced and reinforced structurally,
institutionally, and pedagogically. Portfolio studio is a first step for many students to
explore and recognize the inherent value of their other selves from within the context of
engineering education. It also provides an opening to challenge that which is taken-forgranted
in engineering education from these other perspectives.
One potential critique of the development of a professional portfolio in portfolio studio is
that it is a means to “manage” students‟ understandings of their experiences in service to
the traditional ideals of engineering education. Political, social, and cultural forces shape
our understanding of what is appropriately reflected upon, what is appropriately learned
from it, and to what ends experiences are employed (Fenwick, 2001). Though we leave the
definition up to the students in collaboration with each other, it is true that conceptions of
what it means to be prepared for engineering are strongly formed within the political,
social and cultural context of engineering education. At the same time, by encouraging
students to survey and share experiences well beyond the engineering classroom, there is
the possibility of resistance to and reconstruction of the traditional notion of engineer
through the multiple lenses brought by the many individuals to the studio.
Professional portfolio development is relatively inexpensive and easy to implement in
university programs. Although it would be nice if there were large scale institutional
Proceedings of Research in Engineering Education Symposium 2011
Madrid, 4 th - 7 th October 2011