What Engineers Don't Learn & Why They Don't Learn It & What Philosophy MIght Do to Help

What Engineers Don’t What Engineers Don’t Learn Learn & Why They Don’t & Why They Don’t Learn It:Learn It:and What Philosophy Might Do to Helpand What Philosophy Might Do to Help

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

Reform is in the AirReform is in the Air Many calls for reform. Many lists the same:

Need more “design.” Need more people skill (soft). Need better communications.

Change has come slowly, if at all.

Steadfast defense of “the basics” against foreign invaders.

Reflect on missing elements of engineering education using philosophical modes of inquiry.

© David E. Goldberg 2008

RoadmapRoadmap Industry-based senior design

course as opportunity for diagnosis.

What engineers don’t learn. 7 failures of 21st century

engineering education. Why they don’t learn needed

skills & why reform efforts have failed.

How philosophy might help.


General Engineering & Sr General Engineering & Sr DesignDesign

General 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 funds sought

thereafter.


Jerry S. Dobrovolny

A Tale of Two ProjectsA Tale of Two Projects


Our Project: Force-Feedback from user arms

Commercial Cross-trainer 95Xi

Ready, Set, GoReady, Set, GoThese are seniors.Should be engineers on the threshold.Especially interesting to note what

their educations didn’t prepare them for.

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

teams & faculty advisor.

Go on the plant trip.


Failure 1: Inability to AskFailure 1: Inability to Ask• Don’t learn 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 7

Socrates (470-399 BCE)

Failure 2: Inability to LabelFailure 2: Inability to Label• Don’t learn 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 learn 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 learn 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 learn to measure stuff.

Engineering taught as abstract exercise.

So used to thinking in terms of physics and math, ignore direct measurement.

Historical terms: Locke 101 or Bacon 101?


John Locke (1632-1704)

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

Graphics education greatly diminished.

Do not learn to draw sketches or diagrams when helpful.

Have difficulty with detailed drawings.

Hist terms: da Vinci or Monge 101.


Failure 7: Inability to Failure 7: Inability to CommunicateCommunicate

Finally finish the project.

Don’t learn to present or write.

Coach to successful conclusion.

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

Historical terms: Newman 101.


Paul Newman (1925-2008)

Summary of Quality Summary of Quality FailureFailure• After 4 years they don’t learn how to

– Question: Socrates 101.– Label: Aristotle 101.– Model conceptually: Hume 101 & Aristotle

102.– Decompose: Descartes 101.– Measure: Locke 101 or Bacon 101.– Visualize/draw: Monge 101 or da Vinci

101.– Communicate: Newman 101

• Industry this would be huge quality failure: “product” inadequate to intended function.

• 7 failures as decomposition for repair.© David E. Goldberg 2008 14

What Can They Do?What Can They Do? Can solve equations. Can talk about limited

categories of tech discussed in class.

Can’t think qualitatively or reflectively.

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

Not asking for contemplation outside of discipline.

Let’s walk before running. Want qualitative thinking skill

to permit problem solving & creativity within discipline.


Martin Heidegger (1889-1976)

Why Don’t They Learn the Why Don’t They Learn the 7?7?Stuck in cold war paradigm where

engineering = applied science/math.Don’t articulate engineering

ontology, technology, epistemology & reasoning.

Offer pedagogical solutions to philosophical problems.

Pay no attention to organizational change.

Ignore costs of reform proposals.


Cold War Curriculum in Creative Cold War Curriculum in Creative EraEraIn final days of Vannevar

Bush era.Science: The Endless

Frontier, set stage for NSF & research.

Engineers accepted notion that “science won the war.”

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

Defense of “the basics” is defense of that paradigm.


Foundations Not Foundations Not ArticulatedArticulatedOntology,

epistemology, and reasoning not discussed.

Assumed to come from “the basics.”

Design as abused term & mysterious process.


Pedagogical Solutions to Pedagogical Solutions to Philosophical ProblemsPhilosophical ProblemsPedagogical improvement is

fundamental response of reform movement.

Teaching 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.

Problem: lack of conceptual clarityCalls for philosophical solutions.


20

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. ◦ 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

Economics of Reform Economics of Reform IgnoredIgnoredReform efforts ignore continuing

costs of pilot efforts.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 5600.


How Can Philosophy Help? How Can Philosophy Help? Have been using philosophical modes of thought & have suggested missing philosophical links in engineering canon.

Philosophy asTool for category error diagnosis &

conceptual clarity.Qualitative reasoning skill for educating

engineers.Alternative form of rigor to science &

math.Status enhancement device.


Larger Failure of the Larger Failure of the Academy?Academy? Gripe: engineers can’t apply basic qualitative

thinking skills to novel problems in real world. Can average BA/BS do so in any subject? Average BA as tech/math/science illiterate. Thinking, whether qual or quant, is taught with

respect to existing categories of knowledge. All students have little practice in solving

novel problems. Isn’t this a massive failure of general

education, too? Does philosophy have a role to play here, too?


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.

Philosophy has a role to play to repair.

Engineers need to reflect more deeply and achieve greater conceptual coherence.


More InformationMore Information iFoundry: http://ifoundry.illinois.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 Illinois Genetic Algorithms Lab: http://www-illigal.ge.uiuc.edu/