short-paper

Educating Change-Makers: A Framework for Sustainable Making and Activist Engineering

Authors:

Kelsey Reichenbach,

Brandon ReynanteAuthors Info & Claims

FL2019: Proceedings of FabLearn 2019

Pages 128 - 131

https://doi.org/10.1145/3311890.3311908

Published: 09 March 2019 Publication History

Abstract

Engineers---often characterized as paragons of problem solving---are typically ill-prepared to adequately address social and environmental challenges as a result of their narrow focus on the technical dimensions of their work. In this paper we present an educational framework that integrates sustainability theories, design thinking methods, and maker education principles. We pull these three components together to motivate and empower diverse students to become "activist engineers" who develop holistic, systemic solutions to complex social and environmental problems through collaborative making that centers around the collective good.

References

[1]

C. Baillie, E. Feinblatt, T. Thamae and E. Berrington. 2010. Needs and Feasibility: A Guide for Engineers in Community Projects. The Case of Waste for Life. Morgan & Claypool, San Rafael, CA.

[2]

A.C. Barton and E. Tan. 2015. Designing Equity-Oriented Makerspaces Part I: Interrogating the Equity Challenges in the Maker Movement. (February 2015). Retrieved December 1, 2018 from https://edwp.educ.msu.edu/green-and-write/2015/designing-equity-oriented-makerspaces-part-i-interrogating-the-equity-challenges-in-the-maker-movement/.

[3]

M. Carroll, S. Goldman, L. Britos, J. Koh, A. Royalty and M. Hornstein. 2010. Destination, Imagination and the Fires Within: Design Thinking in a Middle School Classroom. The Journal of Art & Design Education, 29, 37--53.

[4]

E. Cech. 2013. The (Mis)Framing of Social Justice: Why Ideologies of Depoliticization and Meritocracy Hinder Engineers' Ability to Think About Social Injustices. In J. Lucena (Ed.). Engineering Education for Social Justice. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, Vol. 10. Springer, Dordrecht.

[5]

G.L. Downey. 2008. The Engineering Cultures Syllabus as Formation Narrative: Critical Participation in Engineering Education through Problem Definition. St. Thomas Law Journal, 5, 2, 101--130.

[6]

C.E. Foor, S.E. Walden and D.A. Trytten. 2013. I Wish that I Belonged More in this Whole Engineering Group: Achieving Individual Diversity. Journal of Engineering Education, 96, 2, 103--115.

[7]

D.M.A. Karwat, W.E. Eagle, M.S. Wooldridge and T.E. Princen. 2015. Activist Engineering: Changing Engineering Practice by Deploying Praxis. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21, 1, 227--239.

[8]

R.W. Kates, T.M. Parris and A.A. Leiserowitz. 2005. What is Sustainable Development? Goals, Indicators, Values, and Practice. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 47, 3, 8--21.

[9]

J.A. Leydens, J.C. Lucena and D. Nieusma. 2014. What is Design for Social Justice? In Proceedings of the 121st American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition.

[10]

S.M. Lord, M.M. Camacho, R.A. Layton, M.W. Ohland and M.H. Washburn. 2009. Who's persisting in engineering? A comparative analysis of female and male Asian, black, Hispanic, Native American, and white students. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 15, 167--190.

[11]

J. Lucena, J. Schneider and J.A. Leydens. 2010. Engineering and Sustainable Community Development. Morgan & Claypool, San Rafael, CA.

Digital Library

[12]

L. Martin. 2015. The Promise of the Maker Movement for Education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 5, 1, Article 4.

[13]

W. McDonough and M. Braungart. 2002. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things. North Point Press, New York, NY.

[14]

National Science Board. 2018. Science and Engineering Indicators 2018. Alexandria, VA (NSB-2018-1). https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/.

[15]

D. Norman and P.J. Stappers. 2015. DesignX: Complex Sociotechnical Systems. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 1, 83--106.

[16]

S. Papert. 1980. Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. Basic Books, New York, NY.

Digital Library

[17]

A. Pawley. 2012. What counts as "engineering": Toward a redefinition. In C. Baillie et al. (Eds.). Engineering and Social Justice: In the University and Beyond. Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, IN, 59--85.

[18]

H. Quinn and P. Bell. 2013. How designing, making, and playing relate to the learning goals of K-12 science education. In M. Honey and D. Kanter (Eds.). Design. Make. Play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators. Routledge, New York, NY, 17--33.

[19]

R. Rao, A.L. Pawley, S.R. Hoffmann, M.E. Cardella and M.W. Ohland. 2013. An Ecofeminist Grounded Analysis of Sustainability in Engineering Education: Skill Set, Discipline, and Value. International Journal of Engineering Education, 29, 6, 1472--1489.

[20]

M. Ratto. 2011. Critical Making: Conceptual and Material Studies in Technology and Social Life. The information Society, 27, 252--260.

Digital Library

[21]

B. Reynante, M. Bratton and L. Hein. 2017. From First- to Third-Order Social Change in Development Engineering: A Case Study. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference.

[22]

Right to Repair. Retrieved February 8, 2019 from https://repair.org/stand-up/.

[23]

D. Riley. 2003. Pedagogies of Liberation in an Engineering Thermodynamics Class. In Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition.

[24]

D. Riley. 2008. Engineering and Social Justice. Morgan & Claypool, San Rafael, CA.

[25]

D.M. Riley and A.L. Pawley. 2011. Complicating Difference: Exploring and Exploding Three Myths of Gender and Race in Engineering Education. In Proceedings of the 118th American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exhibition.

[26]

H.W.J. Rittel and M.M. Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155--169.

[27]

B. Staton, J. Kramer, P. Gordon and L. Valdez. 2016. From the Technical to the Political: Democratizing Design Thinking. In Proceedings of Congreso International: Contested Cities, Article 5--008.

Cited By

Kinnula MDurall EHaukipuro L(2022)Imagining Better Futures for Everybody – Sustainable Entrepreneurship Education for Future Design Protagonists6th FabLearn Europe / MakeEd Conference 202210.1145/3535227.3535229(1-8)Online publication date: 30-May-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3535227.3535229
Bouwma-Gearhart JChoi YLenhart CVillanueva INadelson LSoto E(2021)Undergraduate Students Becoming Engineers: The Affordances of University-Based MakerspacesSustainability10.3390/su1304167013:4(1670)Online publication date: 4-Feb-2021
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041670
Smolarczyk KKröner S(2021)Two decades in the making: A scoping review on research on digital making and its potential for digital empowerment in non-formal settingsJournal of Research on Technology in Education10.1080/15391523.2021.197498755:3(459-476)Online publication date: 17-Nov-2021
https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1974987
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Educating Change-Makers: A Framework for Sustainable Making and Activist Engineering
1. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Computing education
      1. Model curricula

Recommendations

Educating the Reflective Educator: Design Processes and Digital Fabrication for the Classroom
FabLearn '16: Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference on Creativity and Fabrication in Education

Design thinking and digital technologies are increasingly introduced in education to develop children's design literacy. This shift demands a change in teachers' mindsets, capabilities and approaches to design and technology as well as new teaching ...
e-Government in rural India: An insight into the sustainability issues of telecentres
ICTCS '14: Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Information and Communication Technology for Competitive Strategies

In this paper, an attempt is made to understand the sustainability issues of telecentres by taking a case of `Akshaya' project, Kerala, India. In literature, telecentres are often associated with financial sustainability as the only parameter to judge ...
An exploration of the categories associated with ICT project sustainability in rural areas of developing countries: a case study of the Dwesa project
SAICSIT '06: Proceedings of the 2006 annual research conference of the South African institute of computer scientists and information technologists on IT research in developing countries

Information Communication Technologies (ICTs) play a significant role in enhancing rural development in developing countries. However, rural ICT projects are confronted with challenges that result in projects that are not sustainable, or fail altogether. ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

FL2019: Proceedings of FabLearn 2019

March 2019

206 pages

ISBN:9781450362443

DOI:10.1145/3311890

Conference Chairs:
Paulo Blikstein
Teachers College, Columbia University
,
Nathan Holbert
Teachers College, Columbia University

Copyright © 2019 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 09 March 2019

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Short-paper
Research
Refereed limited

Conference

FL2019

FL2019: FabLearn 2019

March 9 - 10, 2019

NY, New York, USA

Acceptance Rates

FL2019 Paper Acceptance Rate 36 of 73 submissions, 49%;

Overall Acceptance Rate 36 of 73 submissions, 49%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

4
Total Citations
View Citations
219
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)17
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

Reflects downloads up to 25 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Kinnula MDurall EHaukipuro L(2022)Imagining Better Futures for Everybody – Sustainable Entrepreneurship Education for Future Design Protagonists6th FabLearn Europe / MakeEd Conference 202210.1145/3535227.3535229(1-8)Online publication date: 30-May-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3535227.3535229
Bouwma-Gearhart JChoi YLenhart CVillanueva INadelson LSoto E(2021)Undergraduate Students Becoming Engineers: The Affordances of University-Based MakerspacesSustainability10.3390/su1304167013:4(1670)Online publication date: 4-Feb-2021
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041670
Smolarczyk KKröner S(2021)Two decades in the making: A scoping review on research on digital making and its potential for digital empowerment in non-formal settingsJournal of Research on Technology in Education10.1080/15391523.2021.197498755:3(459-476)Online publication date: 17-Nov-2021
https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1974987
Baykal GVan Mechelen MWagner MEriksson E(2021)What FabLearn talks about when talking about reflection — A systematic literature reviewInternational Journal of Child-Computer Interaction10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.10025628:COnline publication date: 1-Jun-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100256

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents