Case Version: What Engineers Don't Learn

What Engineers Don’t What Engineers Don’t Learn Learn & Why They Don’t & Why They Don’t Learn It:Learn It:A Cold War Curriculum in a A Cold War Curriculum in a Creative Era Creative Era & How to Fix It& How to Fix It

David E. GoldbergIllinois Foundry for Innovation in Engineering EducationUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbana, IL 61801 [email protected]

Engineering Reform is in Engineering Reform is in the Airthe Air

Many calls for reform. Many lists the same:

Need more “design.” Need more “soft” people skills. Need better “communications.”

Change has come slowly, if at all.

Steadfast defense of “the basics” against foreign invaders.

Reflect on missing elements & why they’re missing.

Especially important in our creative times.

A warning.

© David E. Goldberg 2008

RoadmapRoadmap Reflections upon 19 years coaching

industrial-sponsored senior design. 7 things engineers don’t learn. 5 reasons they don’t learn them:

philosophical, historical, organizational, systemic & economic.

Moving the larger system: Political realignment for organizational realignment.

Philosophy as realignment aid.


General Engineering & Sr General Engineering & Sr DesignDesignGeneral Engineering at

UIUC established in 1921 following curriculum study.

Grinter report of 1954 led to more math and engineering science at expense of design.

UCLA conference 1962.Ford Foundation grant

1966.Money ran out 1971.Industrial funding supports

thereafter.


Jerry S. Dobrovolny

Ready, Set, GoReady, Set, GoThese are seniors.Should be engineers on the

threshold.Express preferences for projects.Get assigned to a project: 3-

member teams & faculty advisor.Go on the plant trip.

Query: What don’t they know how to do?


Failure 1: Inability to AskFailure 1: Inability to Ask• Don’t know how to

frame or ask good questions.

• Difficulty probing the problem.

• Trouble following what has been tried.

• Problems finding out vendors and sources of information.

• Historical terms: Socrates 101.

© David E. Goldberg 2008 6

Socrates (470-399 BCE)

Failure 2: Inability to LabelFailure 2: Inability to Label• Don’t know names of

common systems, assemblies, and components of technology.

• Difficulty labeling new artifact concepts or models.

• Linguistically naïve.• Mainly comfortable with

familiar categories and objects.

• Historical terms: Aristotle 101.


Aristotle (384-322 BCE)

Failure 3: Inability to Failure 3: Inability to ModelModel

Don’t know how to model conceptually:◦ Causal chain.◦ Categorize according to list

of types or kinds.Pavlovian dogs when it

comes to equations.Need to understand

problem qualitatively in words and diagrams prior to quantitative modeling undertaken.

Historical terms: Hume 101 or Aristotle 102.


David Hume (1711-1776)

Failure 4: Inability to Failure 4: Inability to DecomposeDecompose

• Don’t know how to decompose big problem into little problems.

• Look for magic bullets in equations of motion.

• Most projects too hard: Companies don’t pay $8500 for plugging into Newton’s laws.

• Historical terms: Descartes 101?


René Descartes (1596-1650)

Failure 5: Inability to Failure 5: Inability to MeasureMeasure

Don’t know how to measure stuff.

Engineering taught as abstract math/science exercise.

Ignore benefit of direct measurement.

Historical terms: Locke 101 or Bacon 101?


John Locke (1632-1704)

Failure 6: Inability to Failure 6: Inability to Draw/VisualizeDraw/Visualize

Don’t know how to draw sketches or diagrams when helpful.

Have difficulty with detailed drawings.

Graphics education greatly diminished.

Historical terms: da Vinci or Monge 101.


Failure 7: Inability to Failure 7: Inability to CommunicateCommunicate

Finally finish the project.

Don’t know how to present or write for business.

“What we have here is a failure to communicate.”

Historical terms: Newman 101.


Paul Newman (1925-2008)

Missing Basics a Quality Missing Basics a Quality FailureFailure• After 4 years they don’t know how to

– Question: Socrates 101.– Label: Aristotle 101.– Model conceptually: Hume 101 & Aristotle 102.– Decompose: Descartes 101.– Measure: Bacon-Locke 101.– Visualize/draw: da Vinci-Monge 101.– Communicate: Newman 101

• Call these the missing basics (MBs) vs. “the basics” = math, sci, & eng sci.

• Missing basics are in some sense more basic than “the basics.”

• MBs as quality failure.


What Can They Do?What Can They Do?Can plug & chug in Newton’s

laws, Maxwell’s equations, and calculate big O & rigorous upper bound.

Can talk about limited categories of tech discussed in class.

Can’t think qualitatively or reflectively.

Heidegger’s beef: Science/tech as merely calculative.

Here, not calling for contemplation outside of discipline.

MBs not add ons. Qualitative thinking skill as central

to problem solving & creativity within discipline.


Martin Heidegger (1889-1976)

Why Don’t They Learn Why Don’t They Learn MBs?MBs?Five reasons:

◦Got stuck in cold war paradigm (historical). ◦Mistook math-science for engineering

(philosophical).◦ Ignored organizational barriers

(organizational).◦Believed isolated education scholarship &

pedagogy results in effective reform (systemic).

◦ Ignored costs of reform proposals (economic).


Cold War Curriculum in Cold War Curriculum in Creative EraCreative EraIn final days of Vannevar

Bush era.Science: The Endless

Frontier, set stage for NSF & research.

Engineers accepted notion (myth?) that “science won the war.”

1954 Grinter report spurred injection of math & science, reduction in design & practice.


Kuhn, Paradigms & Engin Kuhn, Paradigms & Engin SchoolSchool“Paradigm” traces to

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in 1962.

Argued that science proceeds in fits and starts, not gradually.

Old paradigms, ways of thinking about the world, are overturned by revolutions, not gradually.

Thomas S. Kuhn (1922-1996)

Paradigm of Tech Paradigm of Tech AcademyAcademyFollowing assumptions sacrosanct:

◦ Basic engineering science key to success.◦ Government funds superior to industry $$$.◦ Demonstrate mettle as individuals with peer-

reviewed journal papers in specialty.Question any stare, derision & ridicule.These beliefs are not scientific. Paradigm of 50s-present.Code words: “the basics,” “rigorous,” &

“soft.”Invoking code words not an argument.

Creative Era & Missed Creative Era & Missed RevolutionsRevolutionsThe paradigm was OK for

WW2 & Cold War.Now a creative era, a flat

world. Missed revolutions since

WW2:◦ Quality revolution.◦ Entrepreneurial revolution.◦ IT revolution.

Teach the “revolutions,” but do not integrate lessons into academy or curriculum.

A Technoeconomic A Technoeconomic FrameworkFrameworkPlace revolutions in

framework of underlying causes.

Missed revolutions enabled by technoeconomic effects:◦ Transport and

communication improvements.

◦ Network effects.◦ Transaction costs.

Puts past in perspective & project future trends. Karl Marx (1818-1883)

No Philosophy of No Philosophy of EngineeringEngineeringOntology,

epistemology, and reasoning not taught, discussed.

Assumed to come from “the basics.”

“Design” as abused term & mysterious process.

The 7 not usually articulated as fundamental to design.


What is Engineering? What is Engineering? Engineering is the

social practice of conceiving, designing, implementing, producing, & sustaining complex technological artifacts, processes, or systems.

Artifacts primary end.

Science & math are among tools used for artifact conception & support.

Social practice Engineered by and for people.

Social side as important as the physics: Searle’s distinctions.


3Space as Balanced 3Space as Balanced CurriculumCurriculum


ThingSpace as ExampleThingSpace as Example


25

Organizational Change Organizational Change IgnoredIgnored

Academic NIMBY problem.

NIMBY = Not in my backyard.

“It is OK to change the curriculum…”

“….as long as you leave my course alone.”

Politics of logrolling: You support my not changing. I support your not changing.

Even though agreement for change is widespread, specific changes are resisted.

: Org Innovation for : Org Innovation for ChangeChange Illinois Foundry for Innovation in Engineering

Education:◦ Separate pilot unit/incubator. Permit change.◦ Collaboration. Large, key ugrad programs work

together. Easier approval if shared. ◦ Connections. Hook to depts, NAE, ABET (?), industry. ◦ Volunteers. Enthusiasm for change among

participants. ◦ Existing authority. Use signatory authority for

modification of curricula for immediate pilot. ◦ Respect faculty governance. Get pilot permission

from the dept. and go back to faculty for vote after pilot change

◦ Assessment. Built-in assessment to overcome objections back home.

◦ Scalability. Past attempts at change like Olin fail to scale at UIUC and other big schools.

www.ifoundry.illinois.edu

Pedagogy & Ed Research Pedagogy & Ed Research InsufficientInsufficientPedagogical improvement & ed

scholarship is fundamental response of reform movement.

Teaching/assessing wrong stuff well a poor solution.Experiential & project-based learning is

cure in many reform efforts.These effective because instructors coach

really engineering knowledge & skill.Teaching right stuff in balky

organization doesn’t go far.No magic bullet here.


Teach More Design & Teach More Design & ProjectsProjectsAgain, a pedagogical response to a

systems problem.This works well (and is terrific step)

toward fixing problem.But design is usually taught in studio

setting or project course.OK for 300, but what about 5700, and

a continuing commitment to research?Cannot assume heroics or

fundamental cultural shift.


Economics of Reform Economics of Reform IgnoredIgnoredReform efforts ignore continuing

costs of pilot efforts.Utopian hopes that research faculty

will return to their love of undergraduate classroom.

Lecture is much maligned.Lectures are cheap.

◦Low preparation costs.◦Lost coordination costs.

Not arguing for lectures alone.Am recommending hard look at

costs & scalability: 300 versus 5700.


Moving the Larger SystemMoving the Larger SystemEngineering education is a larger,

complex system.Organizational realignment needs

political realignment as pressure sustaining change.

A grassroots approach:◦Olin-Illinois Partnership (OIP).◦Summit on the Engineer of the Future

2.0 (EotF2.0)◦Alliance for Promoting Innovation in

Engineering Education (APIE2).© David E. Goldberg 2008

31

Olin-Illinois PartnershipOlin-Illinois Partnership Engineer of the Future

Workshop, September 2007 (University of Illinois).

Sherra Kerns (Olin) one of two keynote speakers.

Continuing conversations & drafting of MOU for Olin-Illinois Partnership (OIP) in summer 2008.

MOU signing 12 Sept 08. Planning for EotF2.0

began shortly thereafter.William Wulf (b. 1939)

EotF2.0 & APIE2EotF2.0 & APIE2Summit on the

Engineer of the Future 2.0.

31 Mar – 1 Apr 2009 (T evening – W).

Keynote: Karan Watson (TAMU)

Engineers of the future.

Breakout sessions.Attendance limited.

Formation of Alliance for Promoting Innovation in Engineering Education.

Sign Transformation Proclamation at EotF2.0 event.


Philosophy as Philosophy as Realignment ToolRealignment ToolTalk has used philosophical modes of

thought & argumentation.Philosophy as

Tool for category error diagnosis & conceptual clarity.

Qualitative reasoning skill for educating engineers.

Alternative form of rigor to science & math.Status enhancement device.

Workshop on Philosophy & Engineering:http://www-illigal.ge.uiuc.edu/wpe


Bottom LineBottom LineSumming up:

◦Senior design as way in.◦7 things engineers don’t learn.◦Connections to intellectual history.◦5 reasons why engineers don’t learn these

things now or why they are hard to reform.Organizational, philosophy, and political

modes of thought have roles to play in realignment.

Complex system can move with pressures in- and outside the academy.

Controversial: Make arguments, don’t merely invoke the “paradigm” & the “basics.”


A Course to ConsiderA Course to ConsiderBig fan of Teaching

Company, www.teach12.com.

Argumentation course a good, practical, introduction to theory and practice of argument.

David Zarefsky, Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning, 2nd Edition


More InformationMore Information iFoundry: http://ifoundry.illinois.edu EotF2.0: http://engineerofthefuture.olin.edu iFoundry YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/illinoisfoundry iFoundry SlideShare: http://www.slideshare.net/ifoundry TEE, the book.

http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470007230.html

TEE, the blog. www.entrepreneurialengineer.blogspot.com

TEE, the course.

http://online.engr.uiuc.edu/webcourses/ge498tee/index.html MTV, the course.

http://online.engr.uiuc.edu/webcourses/ge498tv/index.html Engineering and Technology Studies at Illinois (ETSI)

http://www-illigal.ge.uiuc.edu/ETSI 2008 Workshop on Philosophy & Engineering (WPE)

http://www-illigal.ge.uiuc.edu/wpe