Boundary Judgments in Engineering Curriculum Design using Critical

Systems Heuristics

Theo N Andrew, Professor & Executive DeanDon Petkov, Professor, ECUOlga Petkova, Professor, CCU

Boundary Judgments in Engineering Curriculum Design using Critical Systems Heuristics

Rationale & synopsis of the paper

Curriculum design/innovation is receiving critical attentionNon-trivial exercise due to the nature of the boundaries of the discipline, yet still searching for an appropriate robust methodologyA key question remains: How to design a better engineering curriculum in a systemic way capturing the needs of society, reflecting the interests of various stakeholders and the relevant body of knowledge in a particular field such as EENovel application of Critical Systems Heuristics (Werner Ulrich), provide a clear and generic critical path to addressing the issues arising out of conflicting needs and interests when making choice in complex situations (Boundary judgments), especially in developing countries

Boundary Judgments in Engineering Curriculum Design using Critical Systems Heuristics

Grand purpose for the Engineering curriculum

Curriculum design: the art and science of designing a learning program that enables a learner to achieve specified learning outcomes within a bounded ecology of knowledge, taking into consideration the various constraints such as time, financial and human (expertise) resources, potential of the learner, and stakeholder imperatives Ultimate goal of any engineering task, design or project is intended for human purposes. This means that the practice of engineering is inextricably linked to socio-political factors and economic development.

Boundary Judgments in Engineering Curriculum Design using Critical Systems Heuristics

Conceptual underpinning:Critical System Heuristics

CSH was initially developed within the social planning context & philosophically underpinned by Habermas, Kant and Pierce

Social planning is the art of promoting improvement Ethical choice between needs and values of different groups of people

The core concept in CSH is the notion of Boundary Judgments and how this relates to promoting improvement when making choices

The second concept is the justification break-offs

Boundary Judgments in Engineering Curriculum Design using Critical Systems Heuristics

Conceptual underpinning:Critical System Heuristics\cont…

These need to be concerned with the sources of motivation, sources of power, sources of knowledge and sources of legitimation

Ulrich proposes for each of the four groups above three boundary questions

• The first question in each group is related to a social role e.g. who ought to be the plan's client?

• The second question relates to role specific concerns e.g. what ought to be the plan's purpose?

• The third to the problem of dealing with the conflicting concerns that are part of social reality e.g. what ought to be the underlying measure of improvement?

Boundary Judgments in Engineering Curriculum Design using Critical Systems Heuristics

On the engineering methodology

Formal engineering method and its epistemological underpinnings• “the engineering method is the use of heuristics to cause the

best possible change in an uncertain situation within the available resources” (Koen)o Heuristics – informed by scientific laws but also by experience and

observation of the world around uso Best – optimum, trade-off, value systemo Resources – always finite

• engineering problem solving employs a contingency based form of reasoning in contrast to the necessity based model of rationality which underlies modern science (Goldman)o Although constituted by science its methodology is action oriented,

and value ladenHeuristic based practice

Boundary Judgments in Engineering Curriculum Design using Critical Systems Heuristics

On approaches to curriculum design

The General Education approach• Typical in the USA. Fixed no. of general education credits with adequate

depth & breadth for critical thinking and well rounded educated citizen• Three models - Great Books ; Scholarly Discourse , Effective Citizen’s • Constant flux

Blooms Taxonomy• Taxonomy framework comprising cognitive, and later, affective and

psychomotorGraduate Attributes and Standards Setting by Engineering CouncilsStill a dire need for a more robust and adaptive approach that could deal with the challenges systemically

Boundary Judgments in Engineering Curriculum Design using Critical Systems Heuristics

Example of a set of heuristics

The last group of questions deals with identifying sources of legitimation for the new curriculum.10. Who is (ought to be) witness to the interests of those affected but not involved in the process of curriculum design? That is, who is (should be) treated as a legitimate stakeholder, and who argues (should argue) the case of those stakeholders who cannot speak for themselves, including future generations and non-human nature?11. What secures (ought to secure) the emancipation of those affected from the premises and promises of those involved? That is, where does (should) legitimacy lie?12. What worldview is (ought to be) determining in the process of curriculum design? That is, what different visions of ‘improvement’ are (should be) considered, and how are they (should they be) reconciled?

Boundary Judgments in Engineering Curriculum Design using Critical Systems Heuristics

An Application of CSH for curriculum design of an engineering program

Analysis of a proposed B. Eng. Tech. program (10 exit level outcomes) using Critical Systems Heuristics

AS IS ANALYSIS OUGHT TO BE ANALYSIS Sources of motivation

1) Beneficiary: Industry, professional councils 1) Beneficiary: Students, future students, university, faculty, industry, local and global communities

2) Purpose: To produce an engineering technologist in accordance with the standards set by the Engineering council

2) Purpose: to meet the exit level outcomes, the need for societal relevance and development, to educate and train the student to work in a global community

3) Measure of improvement: employability, professional accreditation

3) Measure of Improvement: transformation of the student, technical competence with sustainability, attributes mentioned in the exit level outcomes, employability, measure of the ‘state of the art’

Sources of power/control 4) Decision maker: professional body, university

Senate, industry 4) Decision maker: professional body, faculty, students, other stakeholders such as industry and civil society

5) Resources: operating finance, quality of students, and quality of lecturers.

5) Resources: operating finance, teaching and learning infrastructure, quality of students, quality of lecturers.

6) Decision environment: Professional council and university

6) Decision environment: All those that have a vested interest in engineering practice and industry, the recipients of engineering solutions

Sources of knowledge/expertise 7) Expert: Professional council and faculty 7) Expert: professional council, faculty, cognate and

other faculty, education specialist 8) Expertise: Professional council, engineering

faculty 8) Expertise: Professional council, engineering and other faculty, others professions , cultural diversity

9) Guarantor: Faculty and university, accreditation body

9) Guarantor: faculty and university, accreditation body

Sources of legitimation 10) Witnesses: little attention is paid to this except to

ensure a consistent standard of graduate. 10) Witnesses: collective stakeholders including civil society via agencies, faculty, students, university, professional councils, industry, bench marking agencies, governmental agencies

11) Emancipation: very little or none 11) Emancipation: Curriculum should be open to criticism by a range of stakeholders, pedagogies must cater for diversity, and curriculum should allow the full realization of the intellectual potential of the students and of faculty.

12) Worldview: Technocratic and imperialist 12) Worldview: societal relevance, transformation of society via technology, amelioration of problem situations, systemic practice

Boundary Judgments in Engineering Curriculum Design using Critical Systems Heuristics

Concluding remarks

Started off with the position that curriculum design is about developing a learning program within the chosen ecology of knowledgeDependent on highly contingent value judgmentsWe propose the idea of an engineering curriculum systemWe propose a systems thinking approach in CSH as the start of a systemic inquiry into the learning program designCritical systemic reflection led to

• Areas that should have wider inclusivity• Need to review normative disciplines and content• Emphasis on a more holistic quality assurance and review model

Work in progress