Cui Bono. Engineering and Technological Literacy and Higher Education.

During the last five years the TELPhE Division of ASEE been engaging in constructive dialogue with its members about its purposes and intents. In 2016 the author presented a paper at ASEE's annual conference that raised questions about the intent of technological literacy in society at the present time. To further encourage dialog the Division invited its membership to submit short responses to the issues raised in the paper with a view to publishing them in one of the Divisions handbooks. These were published in 2017. The publication of the responses serves no useful purpose unless they are scrutinised by the author who caused the responses for in this way ideas are sharpened and refined. The paper reflects the non-linear process of the rhetoric of dialog. It is presented as contribution to the dialogue the Division began when in 2018 it initiated proceedings to produce a White paper on the purpose and future of the Division. It is evident that there are a number of audiences to be met. There is a public audience and an engineering audience particularly of students. The public is not a homogenous group but has several different needs. These needs will only be met by alternative approaches to technological literacy designed to meet different levels of understanding. Most of the courses offered in technological literacy (not to be confused with Science, Technology and Society STS) are electives, but the essay by Keilsen suggests an alternative curriculum for general education programmes. The implications of this review are that the general aims or purposes of programmes in engineering and technological literacy are far from clear. The one that comes through in the essays is the ability to control or change technology. Since, whatever is looked at in this area shows different benefits for users and vendors, the question arises, Cui Bono? This implies that aims will have to be considered within the framework of the common good. The essays show the need for clarification and amplification of the definitions of engineering and technological literacy, even if it means a revised unitary definition. In any event there is a need to take into account the different audiences and perspectives Notwithstanding the issue of finance, or indicators of issues for research raised by this study, as for example, levels of required mathematical attainment, Krupczak shows there is plenty of research to be done in this area that is not being done and should be done. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]