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

What Engineers Don’t Learn & Why They Don’t Learn It: and What Philosophy Might Do to Help David E. Goldberg Illinois Foundry for Innovation in Engineering Education University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Urbana, IL 61801 USA [email_address]

Reform 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

Roadmap
Industry-based senior design course as opportunity for diagnosis.
What engineers don’t learn.
7 failures of 21 st century engineering education.
Why they don’t learn needed skills & why reform efforts have failed.
How philosophy might help.

General Engineering & Sr Design
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.
© David E. Goldberg 2008 Jerry S. Dobrovolny

A Tale of Two Projects © David E. Goldberg 2008 Our Project: Force-Feedback from user arms Commercial Cross-trainer 95Xi

Ready, Set, Go
These 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 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 Socrates (470-399 BCE)

Failure 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.
© David E. Goldberg 2008 Aristotle (384-322 BCE)

Failure 3: Inability to Model
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 E. Goldberg 2008 David Hume (1711-1776)

Failure 4: Inability to Decompose
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?
© David E. Goldberg 2008 René Descartes (1596-1650)

Failure 5: Inability to Measure
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?
© David E. Goldberg 2008 John Locke (1632-1704)

Failure 6: Inability to Draw/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 Communicate
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.
© David E. Goldberg 2008 Paul Newman (1925-2008)

Summary of Quality Failure
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.

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.
© David E. Goldberg 2008 Martin Heidegger (1889-1976)

Why Don’t They Learn the 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 Era
In 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 Articulated
Ontology, epistemology, and reasoning not discussed.
Assumed to come from “the basics.”
Design as abused term & mysterious process.

Pedagogical Solutions to Philosophical Problems
Pedagogical 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 clarity
Calls for philosophical solutions.

Organizational Change Ignored
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 Change
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 Ignored
Reform 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?
Have been using philosophical modes of thought & have suggested missing philosophical links in engineering canon.
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.

Larger Failure of the 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 Line
Summing 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 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/

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

by David E. Goldberg on Nov 12, 2008

Accessibility

Categories

Tags

Upload Details

Usage Rights

1 Embed 4

Statistics

What Engineers Don’t Learn & Why They Don’t Learn It & What Philosophy MIght Do to Help — Presentation Transcript