In engineering, the teaching-from-the-podium-by-manual-and-textbook approach simply isn’t working. It’s not attracting enough students to study engineering. It’s not engaging and fascinating enough of them. It’s not spurring their creative thinking skills in enough ways.
I’m clearly not the only one who has noticed this. The National Science Foundation and oodles of engineering scholars agree. And now that the engineering profession — as a group of individuals bound by common knowledge, education, and language — has come to acknowledge these shortcomings, it is time to address the problems head-on.
Making such a change is difficult. It’s messy and complex. It requires thinking outside the vocabulary and methods that created the profession in the first place. In line with the old cliché: engineering has to starting thinking outside its own box. Most people today agree: We need engineers to see and think in new ways. And indeed, many teachers are:
- working to prompt the needed type of thinking in engineering
- testing new teaching methods
- working to evaluate results
I am one of them.
I have two sets of skills that I am hoping can help in positive ways. First, I’m an architect and seasoned educator. Second, I’m an education researcher. From this vantage point, I see that engineering (programs and pedagogies) can benefit from what architecture programs do.
The architecture profession, for instance, has always used hands-on teaching. Architecture schools are full of students and full of creative energy. Architecture and engineering aren’t so different, yet our ideas about what they “are” differ, and the way they are taught differs as well
“Engineering,” I insist, can benefit from design thinking, from techniques used in design education, and from sharing ideas with architects as well. Upcoming blogs will explain how.
Below is a little gallery of recent research activities, including a short promo video (shot with my iPad in a single take) for our RoboSlam exhibit this weekend’s Dublin Maker event.