Research in Engineering Education Symposium 2011 - rees2009

Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM) Página 98 de 957
Bucciarelli, 2003; Dym, 1994; Dym et al., 2005; Koen, 2003; Wulf, 2002). Karatas (2009)
conducted a thorough literature review to summarize the main tenets of the nature of
engineering and then went on to suggest that the characteristics of engineering solutions
are tentative; theory and failure laden; socially and culturally embedded; and, finally,
require creativity, imagination, integration, and a holistic approach for goal-oriented
design. Carberry (2010) developed the Epistemological Beliefs Assessment for
Engineering (EBAE) that is the first and latest quantitative instrument to assess
epistemological beliefs (in the broader sense) in engineering. This instrument has several
limitations: As noted by Carberry, the main factors of general epistemological beliefs
instruments were adapted as template, in this case the Epistemological Beliefs assessment
for Physical Science (White et al., 1999) supplied the main base for the EBAE. In fact, only
two items directly related to engineering epistemology: one is about the differentiation of
engineering from science: the other is about the importance of design in engineering. More
importantly, most items were related to beliefs about engineering learning.
Figueiredo (2008, 2011) suggested a more coherent transdisciplinary epistemology of
engineering is not limited to the comparison between engineering and science. He
proposed a four dimensional epistemology of engineering: basic sciences, human sciences,
design, and crafts. The basic sciences view of engineering as an applied science and
mathematics is based on the predominantly analytical and positivist epistemology in
engineering, whereas the human sciences carry an intrinsically interdisciplinary,
interpretive, and integrative tradition in engineering (Radcliffe, 2006). The epistemology
of the crafts is supported by the traditions of pragmatist philosophers (Schön, 1983),
while design is becoming more widely considered to be the central or distinguishing
activity of engineering, as a systematic and intelligent process (Dym et al., 2005).
Accordingly, we adopted this framework, anticipating that this study would show how the
aggregation of these four dimensions of engineering in a relationship of transdisciplinarity
have considerable conflicts in values, methodologies, and goals.
Figure 2: Figueiredo, Four dimensions of engineering (London: UK, 2008), quoted from Adams et al.,
Multiple Perspectives on Engaging Future Engineers (Journal of Engineering Education, 2011) p.66
Proceedings of Research in Engineering Education Symposium 2011
Madrid, 4 th - 7 th October 2011