Abstract
An engineer who becomes an educator in a school of software engineering has the mission to teach how to design and construct software systems, therein applying his or her knowledge and expertise. However, due to their engineering background, engineers may forget that educating a person is not the same as designing a machine, since a machine has a well-defined goal, whilst a person is capable to self-propose his or her own objectives. The ethical implications are clear: educating a free person must leave space for creativity and self-determination in his or her own discovery of the way towards personal and professional fulfillment, which cannot consist only in achieving goals selected by others. We present here an argument that is applicable to most fields of engineering. However, the dis-analogy between educating students and programming robots may have a particular appeal to software engineers and computer scientists. We think the consideration of three different stages in the educational process may be useful to engineers when they act as educators. We claim that the three stages (instructing, training and mentoring) are essential to engineering education. In particular, education is incomplete if the third stage is not reached. Moreover, mentoring (the third stage aimed at developing creativity and self-determination) is incompatible with an educational assessment framework that considers the goals of the engineer are always given by others. In our view, then, an integral education is not only beyond programming the behavior of students, but also beyond having them reach those given goals.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
ABET. (2014). Accreditation board for engineering and technology, computing accreditation commission. Criteria for accrediting computing programs. November 1, 2014. http://www.abet.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/C001-15-16-CAC-Criteria-03-10-15.pdf.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York: David McKay Company.
Einstein, A. (1941). The common language of science. A radio address given in September 28th, 1941, first published a year after in Advancement of Science 2(5), 109–110. (Reprinted in Ideas and Opinions 1954).
Génova, G., & González, M. R. (2016). Teaching ethics to engineers: A socratic experience. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(2), 567–580.
Guglielmino, L. M. (2013). The case of promoting self-directed learning in formal educational institutions. SA-eDUC Journal, 10(2), 1–18.
Menzel, H. C., Aaltio, I., & Ulijn, J. M. (2007). On the way to creativity: Engineers as intrapreneurs in organizations. Technovation, 27, 732–743.
Schumacher, E. F. (Ed.). (1973). The greatest resource—education. In Small is beautiful: A study of economics as if people mattered. London: Blond & Briggs.
Van Gelderen, M. (2010). Autonomy as the guiding aim of entrepreneurship education. Education+ Training, 52(8/9), 710–721.
Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Vesilind, P. A. (2001). Mentoring engineering students: Turning pebbles into diamonds. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(3), 407–411.
Williamson, J. M., Lounsbury, J. W., & Han, L. D. (2013). Key personality traits of engineers for innovation and technology development. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 30, 157–168.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The title of this work was inspired by the 1977 science fiction film written and directed by Steven Spielberg, Close Encounters of the Third Kind.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Génova, G., González, M.R. Educational Encounters of the Third Kind. Sci Eng Ethics 23, 1791–1800 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9852-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9852-4