what engineers don't learn & why they don't learn it & what philosophy might do to...
DESCRIPTION
WPE-2008 presentation by David E. Goldberg, University of Illinois, 12 November 2008.TRANSCRIPT
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.
© David E. Goldberg 2008
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.
© David E. Goldberg 2008
Jerry S. Dobrovolny
A Tale of Two ProjectsA Tale of Two Projects
© David E. Goldberg 2008
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.
© David E. Goldberg 2008
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.
© David E. Goldberg 2008 8
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 E. Goldberg 2008 9
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?
© David E. Goldberg 2008 10
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?
© David E. Goldberg 2008 11
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.
© David E. Goldberg 2008 12
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.
© David E. Goldberg 2008 13
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.
© David E. Goldberg 2008
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.
© David E. Goldberg 2008
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.
© David E. Goldberg 2008
Foundations Not Foundations Not ArticulatedArticulatedOntology,
epistemology, and reasoning not discussed.
Assumed to come from “the basics.”
Design as abused term & mysterious process.
© David E. Goldberg 2008
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.
© David E. Goldberg 2008
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.
© David E. Goldberg 2008
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.
© David E. Goldberg 2008
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?
© David E. Goldberg 2008
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.
© David E. Goldberg 2008
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/