Sheppard, Macatangay, Colby, and Sullivan (2009) present similar maxims for engineering education: .... 2004; Gordon, 1984; Rooney, 2010; Sawyer & Greeno, 2009). Eraut's (2007) ..... from colleges of engineering to employment. European ...
Fostering Wise Judgment: Professional Decisions in Development Programs for Early Career Engineers
Sally Hawse, Leigh Wood Department of Marketing and Management, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia Office 714, Building E4A Macquarie University Eastern Road North Ryde NSW 2109
1 of 25
Fostering Wise Judgment: Professional Decisions in Development Programs for Early Career Engineers
This article focuses on wisdom development in workplace programs for early career engineers. It takes the view that wisdom manifests in the workplace through professional judgments, actions, and deliberative reflection on these activities. The article relates the goals and focus of engineering education to what engineers do in practice. It suggests organisational learning and development programs can leverage workplace activities to better assist the articulation of new engineers to professional practice. Second, the article summarises views of expertise and its relationship to experience and the development of professional judgment, and identifies possible means to help foster wisdom in early career engineers. The article concludes that workplace programs targeted at new professionals can benefit from explicit focus on nurturing wisdom. Keywords: professional judgment; wisdom; new career engineers; transformative practice; transition to work
2 of 25
Introduction Professionals engage in complex tasks on behalf of clients and stakeholders. These tasks are often unpredictable and require problem solving and judgments based on experience (Coles, 2002; Crawley, C., Malmqvist, & Brodeur, 2008; Schön, 1983). Professional challenges for new career engineers additionally include the skills and knowledge needed for navigating project based environments with multi-disciplinary teams, cultures, and diverse stakeholder groups (Baytiyeh & Naja, 2011; Finkel & King, 2013). This article is directed at fostering professional judgment for new career engineers. It approaches expertise and wisdom through the lens of professional judgment or “practical professional knowledge” in relation to development programs for career entrants. The article poses the question: “How can workplace programs assist novice engineers to develop their capacity to exercise professional judgment?” Coles (2002) offers the following definition of professional judgment: At the foundation of professional judgment is a form of knowledge – called practical wisdom – which is not formally taught and learnt but is acquired largely through experience and informal conversations with respected peers. Wisdom develops through “the critical reconstruction of practice,” including deliberation, which is distinguished from mere reflection. Professionals need to engage in the appreciation of their practice – not just to understand what informs their own practice but to consider critically the contestable issues endemic to practicing as a professional (Coles, 2002, p. 3).
This definition brings together the complex concepts of “knowledge” and “wisdom”; it has as its foundation Aristotle’s phronesis, which translates as “practical wisdom”. In Figure 1, Coles reframes his definition as ten lessons to guide the development of transformative practice:
3 of 25
Sheppard, Macatangay, Colby, and Sullivan (2009) present similar maxims for engineering education: (1) Engineering work is inherently interactive and complex, (2) formulating problems and solving problems are interdependent activities, (3) engineering has many publics, (4) engineering incorporates many domains beyond the technical, and (5) engineers affect the world. Research amplifies these assertions. Winters, Matusovich, and Carrico (2012, p. 1) note that novice engineers face: Unstructured, real world applications for which they may not have been prepared (Eraut, 2007; Korte, Sheppard, & Jordan, 2008; Polach, 2004). They must navigate unfamiliar systems to access the resources they need, encountering diverse supports and barriers (Brunhaver, Korte, Lande, & Sheppard, 2010). At the same time, early career engineers may be still figuring out their identities and goals for their careers (Arnett, 2004; Lichtenstein et al., 2009; Matusovich, Streveler, Miller, & Olds, 2009).
Leadership skills, teamwork, communication, technical capability, informed decision making, and problem solving abilities are central to engineering practice (Korte et al., 2008; Passow, 2012; Villachica, Plumlee, Huglin, Chegash, & Marker, 2013). Workplace programs that cultivate these capabilities can contribute towards the successful transition of new engineers to professional practice.
The goals of engineering education On graduation, engineers become practitioners. The role of higher engineering education is therefore to educate students to become effective modern engineers. Its goal is for them “to be able to participate and eventually to lead in aspects of conceiving, designing, implementing, and operating systems, products, processes, and
4 of 25
projects. To do this, students must be technically expert, socially responsible, and inclined to innovate” (Crawley, Malmqvist, Östlund, Brodeur, & Edström, 2014, p. 2). Engineering is a diverse and increasingly open ended discipline (Zhou, 2012). It is also a complex applied social system in which knowledge is distributed amongst group members (Jonassen, Strobel, & Lee, 2006; Trevelyan, 2009b, 2013; Yunhe, 2010): Engineers rarely work alone; they rely on the knowledge of many people to solve workplace problems.... different team members contribute their skills and knowledge to the solutions of engineering problems (Jonassen et al., 2006, p. 144).
Trevelyan (2009a) notes that engineering is a sociomaterial discipline, where “engineers typically spend 60% of their time on communication with other people, mainly close associates” (p. 1). The result is that when practicing engineers are asked to recommend strategies to assist newcomers to the profession, they rarely recommend more engineering subjects in the curricula (Jonassen et al., 2006). Instead they highlight the importance of developing practical and interpersonal skills, leadership and decisionmaking, and skills in applied creativity or innovation (Crawley et al., 2014; Saito, Salazar, Kreafle, & Grulke, 2011).
From engineering education to the workplace Solving complex workplace problems with conflicting goals, employing diverse ways to achieve successful solutions, and managing non-engineering success measures and constraints are activities that can be leveraged to support the transition of early career engineers to professional practice (Jonassen et al., 2006). There are high levels of ambiguity in real-world engineering, and what new engineers perceive and learn about engineering work often depends on the quality of their interactions with co-workers and work groups (Korte et al., 2008). Socialisation is consequently an important aspect of
5 of 25
how novice engineers acquire the “habits of practice”, and “habits of mind” or signature epistemologies of their profession (Lucas & Spencer, 2015). Professional socialisation is “the process of learning a professional role and emerging as a member of an occupational culture” (Melrose, Miller, Gordon, & Janzen, 2012, p. 2). Knowledge is in the heads and in the conversations and social relations between collaborators; it is distributed among people, their tools and communication media, history, and the institutions and artefacts they create (Knorr-Cetina, 1999). Engineers “design not just technical artefacts but socio-technical systems” Johri (2010, p. 278). Greeno, Collins, and Resnick (1996) take a sociomaterial stance similar to Trevelyan (2009a); they see knowledge as “distributed among people and their environments, including objects, artefacts, tools, books, and the communities of which they are a part” (p. 17). These “landscapes of practice” (Trevelyan, 2014; WengerTrayner, Fenton-O'Creevy, Hutchinson, Kubiak, & Wenger-Trayner, 2014; Wenger, 1998) are aligned with the practice philosophy of Schatzki (2013; 2005), which theorists (Boud & Rooney, 2011; Higgs, Barnett, Billett, Hutchings, & Trede, 2013; Higgs, Loftus, & Trede, 2010) frame as work that consists of “bundles of practices” which are generated, rather than as pre-determined skills or knowledge that is acquired. Approaching work experiences as formative practices provides workplace learning and development with opportunities to leverage these experiences and to develop professional values, skills, and personas by including mentoring, distributed work groups, guided tasks, and reflection activities in developmental programs.
Views of expertise Korte (2013) quotes a new engineer as saying: “I’m working on my technical niche [to] become the expert” (p. 46). For career novices, acquiring knowledge and skills helps identify them as thought leaders. Such thinking summons deeply held beliefs that 6 of 25
accumulating specialist knowledge distinguishes domain leaders. It is a hallmark of educational programs vested in the acquisition of knowledge and technical proficiency (Beder, 1999; Crawley et al., 2014). In contrast, there is consensus that expertise is a function of time and experience. Kuhlmann and Ardichvili (2015) observe that “numerous studies have documented that expertise is learned over many years of experience/practice (Bryan & Harter, 1897; Chase & Ericsson, 1981; Gobet, 1998)” (p. 262). Expertise theorists describe stages of development from novice to apprentice, to capable, to expert (S. E. Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1980; Hoffman, Shadbolt, Burton, & Klein, 1995): •
Novice – a probationary with some minimal exposure to the domain;
•
Apprentice – a student undergoing a program of instruction, who works closely with and assists someone at a higher level;
•
Journeyman – an experienced and reliable worker who can perform without supervision;
•
Expert – a distinguished journeyman who can deal with unexpected cases, and has skills derived from extensive experience and exposure to sub domains;
•
Master – is qualified to teach at a lower level, is acknowledged as the “real” expert, and whose judgments sets domain regulations, standards, or ideals.
Discipline knowledge, judgment, and embodying domain ideals all constitute aspects of expertise. Experts also advance the knowledge frontiers of their discipline (Alexander, 2003; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006). This means that “people are not honoured for what is in their minds but for the contributions they make to the organisation’s or the community’s knowledge” Scardamalia and Bereiter (2006, p. 99). Figure 2 depicts expertise from the vantage points of knowledge acquisition, problem solving, and
7 of 25
knowledge building:
Alternatives to the knowledge acquisition view championed by Korte’s new engineer are that expertise is a product of socialisation into the norms and expectations of a discipline or profession (Ibarra, 1999; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979), and that expert practitioners share or contribute new knowledge to their domain Alexander (2003). A third alternative is the “propensity” concept of expertise proposed by Bereiter and Scardamalia (1993). It maintains that “expertise is not a final state but involves a propensity to solve problems at the edge of one's competence and to push the boundaries of one's understanding of important (and increasingly complex) problems, solutions, formal knowledge, etc.” (Beaudoin, 2011, p. 4). Eraut (2005); Hoffman et al. (1995); National Academies Press (2000) suggest that expertise signifies richness of experience. It also encompasses the social dimensions of peer collaboration and consensus (Boshuizen, Bromme, & Gruber, 2004; Eraut, 2005). Eraut queries whether the concept of “expert” has become synonymous with the concept of “professional”: The adjective “expert” now means “trained by practice” or “skilled”; and the noun “expert” carries the additional meaning: “One whose special knowledge causes him to be an authority” or “a specialist”.... There is also a suggestion of a social process (training) and a social role (an authority). Becoming an expert entails not only learning, but socialisation (Eraut, 2005, p. 173).
The metaphors of “acquiring” and “transferring” which proliferate in professional development discourse instils a transmissive mode of understanding that knowledge and
8 of 25
skills are transferred from experts to professionals (Boud & Rooney, 2011; Rooney et al., 2013), and that “in other words, when professionals learn they gain a “thing” that they thereby possess to apply as needed at some later date” (Boud & Rooney, 2011, p. 1). McCauley (2016) upends this acquisition mindset. He argues that, from the world of certainty where “if a problem was encountered, an expert was called in to ‘solve’ it”, the current landscape is one of increased uncertainty and collective solution finding. The mainstream and strategic skills set that now needs to be cultivated is “a development paradigm that embraces the discomforts of ambiguity, uncertainty, and complexity” (p. 27). Engineering knowledge is applied to generate solutions (Crawley et al., 2014). Implementing these solutions requires a community of collaborators. Focusing on knowledge acquisition thus leads to narrowly instrumental assumptions and discourse, when the real worth of knowledge is its contextual or socially situated value (Eraut, 2004; Gordon, 1984; Rooney, 2010; Sawyer & Greeno, 2009). Eraut’s (2007) study of early career engineers, accountants and nurses highlights that workplace learning is about learning through work. What is being learned, how it is being learned, and factors such as constructive feedback or “created confidence” and workplace culture affect the quality and degree of learning uptake (De Cossart & Fish, 2010; Eraut et al., 2007). This “learning in the flow of work” is summarised in Figure 3:
While newcomer literature is dominated by discussions of socialisation and assimilation, it devotes less attention to the details of what newcomers do as they 9 of 25
socialise and how this participation helps establish professional identities (Johri, 2012). Anchored in distributed knowledge, socialised activities, and deliberative practice, Eraut’s (2007) taxonomy of workplace learning processes helps address this lack. Similarly, McCall (2010) situates experience at the centre of workplace development programs. Work-related circumstances that are formative include early work experiences, short-term assignments, stretch tasks, working with very good or very bad managers, meeting challenges and solving problems, and to a lesser extent, some training programs. McCall (2010) asserts that these experiences are powerful because they present a panorama of challenges. Identifying the different challenges that make these experiences powerful can serve as opportunities to reflect and to learn how to handle these tests of ability, capacity, and character. Enablers include training interventions, progressive problem solving, and scaffolding “stretch” tasks (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993; Kuhlmann & Ardichvili, 2015), analysing and discussing critical incidents (Tripp, 1993; Villachica, 2013), and deliberate or productive practice (Beaudoin, 2011; Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Römer, 1993; Kuhlmann & Ardichvili, 2015). Higgs et al. (2010) cite Vygotsky to underscore the importance of these activities: “Practice sets the tasks and serves as the supreme judge of theory, as its truth criterion. It dictates how to construct the concepts” (Vygotsky, 1927, p. 1).
Fostering practical wisdom Industry requires leaders capable of making judgements knowing that their decisions are influenced by context, circumstances, and the need for timely outcomes (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 2011; Parker, 2015). “Taking control of uncertainty is the fundamental leadership challenge of our time” asserts (Charan 2015, cited in Parker, 2015, online). Counter to general agreement that years of experience/practice are required to develop expertise, Meacham (1990) excludes time as a component of wisdom. He instead 10 of 25
maintains that the essence of wisdom is in balancing knowing and doubting. Dewey (1933) nominates perplexity, doubt, and investigation as integral to reflective thinking. Synonymous with Dewey, Meacham defines wisdom as an attitude towards the beliefs, values, knowledge, information, abilities, and skills one holds, with awareness that this knowledge is not certain, and that its meaning and value is the product of the context in which it is known. His approach to wisdom correlates with Bereiter & Scardamalia’s (1993) “propensity” concept of expertise, or the ability to extend one’s current capabilities and knowledge boundaries: The challenge of wisdom is to avoid this easy course of merely acquiring more and more knowledge and instead to strive simultaneously to construct new uncertainties, doubts, and questions about what might be known (Meacham, 1990, p. 183).
Actively engaging in reflection nurtures the development of wisdom. Arlin for example, approaches wisdom through “problem finding”. She suggests that “knowing what one does not know can be represented by the questions one asks, the doubts one has, and the ambiguities one tolerates. This type of knowing is the gift of one who has thought deeply in a domain and has a substantial knowledge based within that domain” (Arlin, 1990, p. 230). For Boud, Keogh, and Walker (1985) reflection is an activity in which people “recapture their experience, think about it, mull it over and evaluate it” (p. 19). They identify three important aspects of this process: (1) recalling or detailing significant events, (2) emotional associations, and (3) re-examining or evaluating experiences. Eraut (2004) sees these as deliberative activities. He borrows the notion of “deliberate” learning from Tough (1971): “Time is set aside for acquiring new knowledge, and engagement in deliberative activities such as planning and problem solving, for which
11 of 25
there is a clear work-based goal with learning as a probable by-product” (Eraut, 2004, p. 250). Gibbs’ reflective cycle (1998, 2013) is a commonly used model of reflection. It derives from Kolb’s (1973) experiential learning cycle, and builds on Boud et al. (1985) who triangulates experience, reflection, and learning. Similar to the structured After Action Reviews (AARs) and Post Completion Reviews (PCRs) used by engineering and project teams to debrief and consider lessons learned, Gibbs proposes that “theory and practice enrich each other in a never-ending circle” (Finlay, 2008, p. 8). Figure 4 illustrates this reflective cycle:
Dewey (1933) famously argued that: “We do not learn from experience. We learn from reflecting on experience” (p. 78). Reflection is a transformational process. Hinett (2002) conveys this as: “What gets us from experience to understanding is reflection” (p. 1). Appreciation of practice is purposeful and deliberative; it provides opportunities to constructively evaluate what we did, what we did well, and what we could do better next time (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993; Coles, 2002; Day, 2010). (MacIntyre, 2007) suggests that wisdom is related to options and to how to judge what we should do in different circumstances, and with the resources available. When evaluation is part of the context of work it is “generally educative” (Reid, 1978, p. 57). Participating in endeavours such as structured learnings activities that promote reflection on practice can serve as an instructional mechanism in transitioning novices to wise practitioners.
12 of 25
Aristotle distinguishes between techne (technical or knowledge of how to make things) and phronesis (practical wisdom). Similarly Csikszentmihalyi and Rathunde (1990) assert that “the whole point of the concept of wisdom is that it is different from domain-related thought and knowledge” (p. 42). In this, they are joined by Sternberg (2001), who differentiates between a domain and a field: A domain is a formal body of knowledge that is learned, such as mathematics or physics, whereas a field is the social dynamics of how this knowledge is created and transmitted. Professionals combine specialised knowledge and “the technique of production or application of knowledge over which the specialist claims mastery” (Eraut, 2005; Moore, 1970, p. 141). From this perspective, deep domain knowing may promise expertise, but it is the tacit or experience-based and socially-exchanged richness assimilated in one’s knowledge of a field that is foundational to professional wisdom. There has been much discussion around T-shaped capabilities, or the ability for individuals to leverage specialist skills and apply transferrable knowledge across a range of situations and scenarios (Brooks, 2012; Oskam, 2009; Uhlenbrook & de Jong, 2012). This compels the question: How can workplaces foster the qualities required in broad (wise) and deep (expert) practices? Following Baltes and Staudinger (2000) and Kekes (1983), Bluck and Glück (2004) maintain that wisdom is “a personal resource that is used to negotiate fundamental life changes and challenges and is often directed towards the goals of living a good life or striving for the common good” (p. 545). It is a combination of experiential knowledge, cognition, affect, and action that sometimes occurs in social contexts (Ardelt, 1997; Clayton & Birren, 1980; Labouvie-Vief, 1990; Sternberg, 1998). Wisdom is thus the territory of all (Meacham, 1990; Sternberg, 2001) . Gates and Higgs (2013) frame this understanding of wisdom as an individual and personal characteristic that transcends the boundaries of formal and higher education programs; it
13 of 25
“sits comfortably within the realm of lifelong and lifewide education” (p. 43). Sternberg (2004); (Sternberg, 2010) further asserts that wisdom can and should be embedded into educational practices at each stage of the learning journey. Glück and Bluck (2011); Glück, Bluck, Baron, and Mcadams (2005) seek to surface wisdom through autobiographical accounts of real-life experiences: We examine how individuals view themselves, or their own life events, as wise. What types of events are seen as eliciting wisdom and what forms does wisdom take? (Glück et al., 2005, p. 197)
Korte (2013) discusses how ill-defined problems can be debated and analysed to create personal master narratives. Reflecting on these stories and the experiences they contain can help create personal wise narratives. Table 1 lists a number of alternate techniques to foster wisdom:
“By narrating their experiences new engineers transformed a relatively disorganised set of experiences into a more meaningful and coherent series of events” (Korte, 2013, p. 46). The events we evaluate and share contribute to sense-making. They help establish the boundaries and horizons of complex work environments, and over time, contribute to creating both individual narratives and the “master narrative” or the philosophy of our chosen profession.
Developing professional judgment Dewey (1933) cautioned that, “learning is not wisdom; information does not guarantee 14 of 25
good judgment” (p. 107). Judgment is the nexus where expertise and wisdom come together. Arlin (1990) attributes wisdom to the “decisions, judgments, and practices that are made in the face of uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity” (p. 237). These wise decisions, judgments, and their outcomes often push boundaries and redefine normal or accepted standards (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993). Expertise and wisdom both lie on a continuum rather than being categorical qualities that are either present or absent (Bassett, 2011; Jeste & Harris, 2010). Arlin (1990) further suggests that “wisdom can be represented as a set of conceptual moves” (p. 237). The theories of leadership passages and threshold concepts present related viewpoints. Charan, Drotter, and Noel (2011) propose that six key leadership transitions mark a professional journey. These transitions or “passages” present individuals with unique challenges as they advance from self to team, to functional or organisational leadership. Each stage requires different skills sets and values in order to lead successfully. Similarly, Meyer and Land (2003) note there are concepts which unlock how disciplines are understood, identified with, and practised. These concepts open doors to new “thresholds” of understanding. Threshold concepts are characterised as being: •
Transformative – they change the way a discipline is understood, or perhaps even one’s identity;
•
Irreversible – changes of perspective occasioned by understanding a threshold concept are unlikely to be forgotten
•
Integrative – these concepts establish interrelatedness of ideas and core discipline concepts Meyer and Land (2003).
As a consequence of comprehending a threshold concept, views of the field subject content, the domain landscape, or world views may be transformed. Professional
15 of 25
judgment develops as a series of conceptual stages typified by distinct thinking and behaviours (Arlin, 1990; Charan et al., 2011; Meyer & Land, 2003). These stages evolve from routine judgments based on policy, to problem solving, to complex decisions that are influenced by outcomes and moral considerations. Judgment sets professional practice apart from more routinely technical work; practice is based in reasoning and making choices. These choices and the thinking behind them are what constitute practical wisdom and professional judgment. Coles (2002) notes that, “a huge challenge for us today concerns whether we deal adequately with this as part of professional development” (p. 5). To meet this challenge, he outlines a typology of judgement influenced by reflecting on critical incidents (Tripp, 1993) and approaching curricula more through the lens of practice than from an overtly scientific viewpoint (Fish & Coles, 2005), or as an object of policy (Grundy, 1987). Figure 5 presents this typology:
Coles’ taxonomy of judgement (2002) provides a developmental and transformative approach to decision-making that moves from the individual to the workgroup, and then to the distributed and contextual. His typology progresses from (1) the triage and process-driven “What do I do now?” to (2) the choices and selecting appropriate options of “What might I do now?” to (3) lessons learned or reflecting on alternatives in “What could I/we to do now?” to (4) outward looking balancing of competing forces, the ethical imperative of the common good, and principled deliberation in “What ought I/we to do now”? Following Yunxia, Rooney, and Phillips (2016), these questions 16 of 25
comprise a developmental process that leads to practical wisdom, which: Not only drives action that is intentional, it also uses tacit knowledge and experience, considers the long-term future, and incorporates a broad spectrum of ways of knowing and perspectives. In doing this, a wise person can generalise beyond what narrow expertise can, and know what to do in specific instances (Yunxia et al., 2016, p. 610).
“What is it that turns experience into learning? What specifically enables learners to gain the maximum benefit from the situations they find themselves in? How can they apply their experiences in new contexts? Why can some learners appear to benefit more than others?” (Boud et al., 1985, p. 7). Part of the answer to these questions is in the differences in how novices and experts classify and order their knowledge. Novices group things based on surface features, while experts group things based on patterns of experience, meaningful context and conditions of relevance (Boud et al., 1985; Cropp, Banks, & Elghali, 2011; National Research Council, 2001). At the intuitive, strategic, and reflective stages of Coles’ taxonomy of professional judgment, the focus is on the practitioner. Through appreciation of practice, and critical reconstruction of the context in which decisions are made, reflection shifts focus to the broader landscape of professional activity, which includes clients and stakeholders. Reid (1978) identifies the educative nature of appreciative reflection. Minds are changed by the act of appreciation and practice is changed by the way that it is conceived. Wise judgments are the result of deliberative thinking on challenging events, circumstances, or problems. Reflection enables the knowledge of experience to become these wise judgments.
Conclusion This article has responded to the question: “How can workplace programs assist novice
17 of 25
engineers to develop their capacity to exercise professional judgment?” Taking the view that practical wisdom is the foundation of professional judgement, it maintains that wisdom is the intentional and principled balancing of competing forces, and that professional wisdom is realised in practice. Wisdom is independent of age and within reach of career newcomers. It is cultivated through activities and conversations about and through work, and is demonstrated in workplace judgments that combine experience and specialist knowledge with ethical responsibilities. The goal of engineering education is to prepare students to participate in and to lead in devising and implementing engineering solutions. While engineering graduates may have technical expertise, innovative capabilities, and be socially accountable, engineering outcomes increasingly require decisions based on uncertainty. Workplaces can foster the propensity for wise decisions by embedding opportunities for deliberative or structured reflection into developmental programs.
18 of 25
References Alexander, P. A. (2003). The Development of Expertise: The Journey From Acclimation to Proficiency. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 10-14. Anderson, J. R. (1995). The architecture of cognition (Vol. 5): Lawrence Erlbaum. Ardelt, M. (1997). Wisdom and life satisfaction in old age. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 52(1), P15-P27. Arlin, P. K. (1990). Wisdom: the art of problem finding. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Wisdom: Its nature, origins, and development (pp. 230-243). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Arnett, J. J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties: Oxford University Press. Baltes, P. B., & Staudinger, U. M. (2000). A Metaheuristic (Pragmatic) to Orchestrate Mind and Virtue Toward Excellence. American Psychologist, 55(1), 122-136. Bassett, C. L. (2011). Understanding and teaching practical wisdom. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2011(131), 35-44. doi:10.1002/ace.419 Baytiyeh, H., & Naja, M. (2011). Identifying the challenging factors in the transition from colleges of engineering to employment. European Journal of Engineering Education, 37(1), 3-14. Beaudoin, L. P. (2011). Experts' Productive Learning from Formal Knowledge: Motive Generators and Productive Practice. Paper presented at the A symposium in Honour of Aaron Sloman: From animals to robots and back: Reflections on hard problems in the study of cognition, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. Beder, S. (1999). Beyond technicalities: Expanding engineering thinking. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 125(1), 12-18. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: an inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago: Open Court. Bluck, S., & Glück, J. (2004). Making things better and learning a lesson: experiencing wisdom across the lifespan. J Pers, 72(3), 543-572. doi:10.1111/j.00223506.2004.00272.x Boshuizen, H., Bromme, R., & Gruber, H. (2004). On the Long Way from Novice to Expert and How Travelling Changes the Traveller. In H. Boshuizen, R. Bromme, & H. Gruber (Eds.), Professional learning: Gaps and transitions on the way from novice to expert (Vol. 2, pp. 3-8). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Reflection: Turning experience into learning. Oxford: Routledge. Boud, D., & Rooney, D. (2011). A practice approach to studying professional learning:“can’t get no satisfaction”. Brooks, K. (2012). Career Success Starts With a "T". Career Transitions. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/career-transitions/201204/careersuccess-starts-t Brunhaver, S., Korte, R., Lande, M., & Sheppard, S. (2010). Supports and barriers that recent engineering graduates experience in the workplace. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education. Bryan, W. L., & Harter, N. (1897). Studies in the physiology and psychology of the telegraphic language. Psychological Review, 4(1), 27. Charan, R., Drotter, S., & Noel, J. (2011). The leadership pipeline: How to build the leadership powered company (2 ed. Vol. 391). San Francisco, CA.: John Wiley & Sons. 19 of 25
Chase, W. G., & Ericsson, K. A. (1981). Skilled memory. In J. R. Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp. 141-189). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum Associates. Clayton, V. P., & Birren, J. E. (1980). The development of wisdom across the life span: A reexamination of an ancient topic. Life-span development and behavior, 3, 103-135. Coles, C. (2002). Developing professional judgment. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 22(1), 3-10. doi:10.1002/chp.1340220102 Crawley, E. F., C., J., Malmqvist, J., & Brodeur, D. R. (2008). The Context in Engineering Education. Paper presented at the 4th International CDIO Conference, Hogeschool Gent, Gent, Belgium, . http://vvvvw.cdio.org/files/document/file/m1-crawley2008.pdf Crawley, E. F., Malmqvist, J., Östlund, S., Brodeur, D. R., & Edström, K. (2014). Rethinking Engineering Education: The CDIO Approach (2 ed.). Heidelberg: Springer. Cropp, N., Banks, A., & Elghali, L. (2011). Expert Decision Making in a Complex Engineering Environment: A Comparison of the Lens Model, Explanatory Coherence, and Matching Heuristics. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 5(3), 255-276. doi:10.1177/1555343411415795 Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Rathunde, K. (1990). The psychology of wisdom: An evolutionary interpretation. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Wisdom: Its nature, origins, and development (pp. 25-51). New York: Cambridge University Press. Day, D. V. (2010). The Difficulties of Learning From Experience and the Need for Deliberate Practice. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3(1), 41-44. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01195.x De Cossart, L., & Fish, D. (2010). Workplace Learning Post-Graduation: Bridging the Gaps. In J. Higgs, S. Loftus, & F. Trede (Eds.), Education for future practice. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston, D.C.: Heath and Company. Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1986). Mind over Machine. The Power of Human Intuition and Expertise in the Era of the Computer: New York: The Free Press. Dreyfus, S. E., & Dreyfus, H. L. (1980). A Five-Stage Model of the Mental Activities Involved in Directed Skill Acquisition. Monograph. Operations Research Center. California University Berkeley. Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA084551&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf Dye, V. (2011). Reflection, Reflection, Reflection. I’m thinking all the time, why do I need a theory or model of reflection? In D. McGregor & L. Cartwright (Eds.), Developing Reflective Practice: A guide for beginning teachers. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press, McGraw-Hill Education (UK). Eraut, M. (2004). Informal learning in the workplace. Studies in Continuing Education, 26(2), 247-273. doi:10.1080/158037042000225245 Eraut, M. (2005). Expert and expertise: meanings and perspectives. Learning in Health and Social Care, 4(4), 173-179. doi:10.1111/j.1473-6861.2005.00102.x Eraut, M. (2007). Learning from other people in the workplace. Oxford Review of Education, 33(4), 403-422. Eraut, M., Steadman, S., Maillardet, F., Miller, C., Ali, A., Blackman, C., . . . Caballero, C. (2007). Early career learning at work: insights into professional development during the first job. Teaching and Learning Research Briefing, 25.
20 of 25
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. US: American Psychological Association. Finkel, A., & King, R. (2013). Innovative Approaches to Engineering Education. Paper presented at the CAETS, International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, Budapest. Finlay, L. (2008). Reflecting on ‘Reflective practice’. Discussion paper. Practice Based Professional Learning Centre PBPL. Retrieved from http://www.open.ac.uk/opencetl/files/opencetl/file/ecms/web-content/Finlay(2008)-Reflecting-on-reflective-practice-PBPL-paper-52.pdf Fish, D., & Coles, C. (2005). Medical Education: Developing A Curriculum For Practice. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press, McGraw-Hill Education (UK). Gates, A., & Higgs, J. (2013). Realising Wise Practitioners. In J. Higgs, D. Sheehan, J. Currens, W. Letts, & G. Jensen (Eds.), Realising Exemplary Practice-Based Education (Vol. 7, pp. 43-56). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Gibbs, G. (1998, 2013). Learning by Doing: A Guide to Teaching and Learning Methods. Oxford Brookes University: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development. Glück, J., & Bluck, S. (2011). Laypeople's Conceptions of Wisdom and Its Development: Cognitive and Integrative Views. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 66B(3), 321-324. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbr011 Glück, J., Bluck, S., Baron, J., & Mcadams, D. P. (2005). The wisdom of experience: Autobiographical narratives across adulthood. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29(3), 197-208. doi:10.1177/01650250444000504 Gobet, F. (1998). Expert memory: a comparison of four theories. Cognition, 66(2), 115152. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00020-1 Gordon, B. M. (1984). What is an Engineer? Invited Keynote Presentation. Paper presented at the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) Annual Conference, Germany: University of Erlangen-Nürnberg. Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15–46): New York, NY. Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum product or praxis. Brighton, UK: Falmer. Higgs, J., Barnett, R., Billett, S., Hutchings, M., & Trede, F. (2013). Practice-based education: Perspectives and strategies (Vol. 6): Springer Science & Business Media. Higgs, J., Loftus, S., & Trede, F. (Eds.). (2010). Education for future practice. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Hinett, K. (2002). Improving learning through reflection–part one. The Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from http://jisctechdis.ac.uk/assets/documents/resources/database/id485_improving_l earning_part_one.pdf Hoffman, R. R., Shadbolt, N. R., Burton, A. M., & Klein, G. (1995). Eliciting Knowledge from Experts: A Methodological Analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62(2), 129-158. Ibarra, H. (1999). Provisional Selves: Experimenting with Image and Identity in Professional Adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 764-791.
21 of 25
Jeste, D. V., & Harris, J. C. (2010). Wisdom—A Neuroscience Perspective. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 304(14), 1602-1603. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1458 Johns, C. (2010). Guided reflection: A narrative approach to advancing professional practice (2 ed.). Oxford: John Wiley & Sons. Johns, C. (2013). Becoming a reflective practitioner (4 ed.). Oxford: John Wiley & Sons. Johri, A. (2010). Open organizing: designing sustainable work practices for the engineering workforce. International Journal of Engineering Education, 26(2), 278. Johri, A. (2012). Learning to demo: the sociomateriality of newcomer participation in engineering research practices. Engineering Studies, 4(3), 249-269. Jonassen, D., Strobel, J., & Lee, C. B. (2006). Everyday Problem Solving in Engineering: Lessons for Engineering Educators. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 139-151. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00885.x Kekes, J. (1983). Wisdom. American Philosophical Quarterly, 277-286. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Harvard: Harvard University Press. Kolb, D. A. (1973). Management and the learning process. California Management Review (pre-1986), 18(000003), 21. Korte, R. (2013). The Formulation of Engineering Identities: Storytelling as Philosophical Inquiry Philosophy and Engineering: Reflections on Practice, Principles and Process (pp. 39-50): Springer. Korte, R., Sheppard, S., & Jordan, W. (2008). A Qualitative Study of the Early Work Experiences of Recent Graduates in Engineering. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education, June 22-26, Pittsburgh. Kuhlmann, D. O., & Ardichvili, A. (2015). Becoming an Expert: Developing expertise in an applied discipline. European Journal of Training and Development, 39(4), 262-276. doi:doi:10.1108/EJTD-08-2014-0060 Labouvie-Vief, G. (1990). Wisdom as integrated thought: Historical and developmental perspectives. Wisdom: Its nature, origins, and development, 1990, 52-83. Lichtenstein, G., Loshbaugh, H. G., Claar, B., Chen, H. L., Jackson, K., & Sheppard, S. D. (2009). An Engineering Major Does Not (Necessarily) an Engineer Make: Career Decision Making Among Undergraduate Engineering Majors. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(3), 227-234. doi:10.1002/j.21689830.2009.tb01021.x Lucas, B., & Spencer, E. (2015). Remaking Apprenticeships: Powerful Learning for Work and Life. University of Winchester. Centre for Real-World Learning. Retrieved from http://www.winchester.ac.uk/aboutus/lifelonglearning/CentreforRealWorldLearn ing/Publications/Documents/Lucas%20and%20Spencer%20(2015)%20Remakin g%20Apprenticeships.pdf MacIntyre, A. (2007). After virtue: A study in moral theory (3 ed. Vol. 99): University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame. Marcel, G. (1955). The decline of wisdom. London, UK: Philosophical Library. Matusovich, H., Streveler, R., Miller, R., & Olds, B. (2009). I'm Graduating This Year! So What IS an Engineer Anyway? Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education. McCall, M. W. (2010). Recasting Leadership Development. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3(1), 3-19. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01189.x
22 of 25
McCauley, D. H. (2016). Rediscovering the Art of Strategic Thinking. National Defense University Press, Joint Force Quarterly 81 (JFQ)(2nd Quarter, April 2016). Meacham, J. A. (1990). The loss of wisdom. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Wisdom: Its nature, origins, and development (pp. 181-211). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Melrose, S., Miller, J., Gordon, K., & Janzen, K. J. (2012). Becoming Socialized into a New Professional Role: LPN to BN Student Nurses' Experiences with Legitimation. Nursing Research and Practice, 2012. Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning: Theory and practice - Ten years on (pp. 412424): Oxford: Centre for Staff and Learning Development. Moore, W. E. (1970). The professions: Roles and rules: Russell Sage Foundation. National Academies Press (Ed.) (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Retrieved from Washington, DC., National Academy Press: Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (2011). The wise leader. Harvard Business Review, 89(5), 58-67. Oskam, I. (2009). T-shaped engineers for interdisciplinary innovation: an attractive perspective for young people as well as a must for innovative organisations. Paper presented at the 37th Annual Conference–Attracting students in Engineering, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Parker, D. (2015). Former Harvard professor Ram Charan is a business leader among men. In The Black: Leadership, Strategy, Business. Retrieved from http://intheblack.com/articles/2015/05/01/is-ram-charan-the-most-influentialconsultant-alive Passow, H. J. (2012). Which ABET Competencies Do Engineering Graduates Find Most Important in their Work? Journal of Engineering Education, 101(1), 95118. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb00043.x Polach, J. L. (2004). Understanding the experience of college graduates during their first year of employment. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(1), 5-23. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1084 Reid, W. A. (1978). Thinking About The Curriculum: The Nature and Treatment of Curriculum Problems. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Rooney, D. (2010). Creatively wise education in a knowledge economy. In D. Araya & M. A. Peters (Eds.), Education in the Creative Economy: Knowledge and Learning in the Age of Innovation (pp. 179-203). New York: Peter Lang. Rooney, D., Willey, K., Gardner, A., Boud, D., Reich, A., & Fitzgerald, T. (2013). Engineers’ professional learning: Through the lens of practice. Engineering Practice in a Global Context: Understanding the Technical and the Social, 265. Saito, K., Salazar, A. J., Kreafle, K. G., & Grulke, E. A. (2011). Hitozukuri and Monozukuri: Centuries' Old Eastern Philosophy to Seek Harmony with Nature. Interdisciplinary Information Sciences, 17(1), 1-9. Salthouse, T. A. (1991). Theoretical perspectives on cognitive aging. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23 of 25
Sawyer, R. K., & Greeno, J. G. (2009). Situativity and learning. In M. Aydede & P. Robbins (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Situated Cognition (pp. 347-367): Cambridge. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 97-118). New York: Cambridge University Press. Schatzki, T. (2013). A Primer on Practices. In J. Higgs, R. Barnett, S. Billett, M. Hutchings, & F. Trede (Eds.), Practice-based education: Perspectives and strategies (Vol. 6, pp. 13-26). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Schatzki, T. R. (2005). Peripheral Vision The Sites of Organizations. Organization Studies, 26(3), 465-484. Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Sheppard, S., Macatangay, K., Colby, A., & Sullivan, W. M. (2009). Educating Engineers: Designing for the future of the field (Vol. 9): Jossey-Bass San Francisco, CA. Sternberg, R. J. (1998). A balance theory of wisdom. Review of general psychology, 2(4), 347. Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Why schools should teach for wisdom: The balance theory of wisdom in educational settings. Educational Psychologist, 36(4), 227-245. Sternberg, R. J. (2004). What is Wisdom and How Can We Develop It? The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591(1), 164-174. doi:10.1177/0002716203260097 Sternberg, R. J. (2010). WICS: A new model for school psychology. School Psychology International, 31(6), 599-616. doi:10.1177/0143034310386534 Tiberius, R. G., & Smith, R. A. (1998). The Nature of Expertise: Implication for Teachers and Teaching. Toward the Best in the Academy, 10(7), 123-138. Tough, A. (1971). The Adult's Learning Projects. A Fresh Approach to Theory and Practice in Adult Learning. Toronto, Ontario: Institute for Studies in Education. Trevelyan, J. (2009a). Engineering Education Requires a Better Model of Engineering Practice. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Research in Engineering Education Symposium. Trevelyan, J. (2009b). Steps Toward a Better Model of Engineering Practice. Paper presented at the Research in Engineering Education Symposium, Palm Cove, Queensland, Australia. Trevelyan, J. (2013). Towards a theoretical framework for engineering practice. Engineering Practice in a Global Context: Understanding the Technical and the Social, 33. Trevelyan, J. (2014). The Making of an Expert Engineer. Leiden, The Netherlands: CRC Press. Tripp, D. (1993). Critical Incidents in Teaching (Classic Edition): Developing Professional Judgement. Oxford, UK: Routledge. Uhlenbrook, S., & de Jong, E. (2012). T-shaped competency profile for water professionals of the future. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 16(10), 34753483. Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1, 209-264. Villachica, S. (2013). When Performance is Fuzzy: The Critical Incident Technique. Paper presented at the International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI) Conference 2014, Reno, Nevada.
24 of 25
Villachica, S., Plumlee, D., Huglin, L., Chegash, A., & Marker, T. (2013). But What’s Happening On The Job?: An Investigation Of “Freshouts” Performance In The Engineering Workplace. Paper presented at the Engineering Education in an Era of Globalization, The Conference for Industry and Education Collaboration (CIEC), Phoneix Arizona. Vygotsky, L. S. (1927). The historical meaning of the crisis in psychology: A methodological investigation (R. van der Veer, Trans. 1987 ed.). New York: Plenum. Wenger-Trayner, E., Fenton-O'Creevy, M., Hutchinson, S., Kubiak, C., & WengerTrayner, B. (Eds.). (2014). Learning in Landscapes of Practice: Boundaries, identity, and knowledgeability in practice-based learning. Oxford: Routledge. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Winters, K., Matusovich, H., & Carrico, C. (2012). So How Did That Go For You? Early Career Engineers' Success in Meeting Goals set as Undergraduate Seniors. Paper presented at the American Society of Engineering EducationSoutheast Section Conference. Yunhe, P. (2010). On the Cultivation of Innovative Engineering Talent. In D. Grasso & M. Burkins (Eds.), Holistic Engineering Education (pp. 113-124): Springer New York. Yunxia, Z. H. U., Rooney, D., & Phillips, N. (2016). Practice-Based Wisdom Theory for Integrating Institutional Logics: A New Model for Social Entrepreneurship Learning and Education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 15(3), 607-625. doi:10.5465/amle.2013.0263 Zhou, C. (2012). Fostering creative engineers: a key to face the complexity of engineering practice. European Journal of Engineering Education, 37(4), 343353.
25 of 25
