Boundary Judgments in Engineering Curriculum Design using Critical Systems Heuristics Theo N Andrew, Professor & Executive Dean Don Petkov, Professor, ECU Olga Petkova, Professor, CCU

Boundary Judgments in Engineering Curriculum Design using Critical Systems Heuristics Rationale & synopsis of the paper  Curriculum design/innovation is receiving critical attention  Non-trivial exercise due to the nature of the boundaries of the discipline, yet still searching for an appropriate robust methodology  A 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 EE  Novel 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 us o Best – optimum, trade-off, value system o 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 laden  Heuristic 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 psychomotor  Graduate Attributes and Standards Setting by Engineering Councils  Still 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

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 knowledge  Dependent on highly contingent value judgments  We propose the idea of an engineering curriculum system  We propose a systems thinking approach in CSH as the start of a systemic inquiry into the learning program design  Critical 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