Extending Time for "Basic Engineering Education" (Bachelors + Masters)

In the last week readings Goals Committee (1968) tried to predict the future in terms of how technology will progress and consequently what will be the needs for engineers in the next 10-20 years. They noted that there is an increasing demand of students with graduate education in the industry where undergraduate education is not considered sufficient. The one major recommendation they had is to extend basic engineering education to include at least one year of graduate studies leading to master’s degree. Their recommendation could not be materialized in form but I think we know that what they were saying is right and masters has increasingly become important for an engineering career in industry.

The academics from the science disciplines it seems have come up with a neater idea. They have what they call as professional science masters [link]. This type of masters program has also gained some good ground across the universities [link]. The program integrates business and industry oriented courses with technical courses. I was wondering why such an idea has not been tried with engineering? I think this will be a more attractive option for engineering graduates who are interested in working in the industry.

Classroom Observation - Junaid

I observed following class:

Course: CE 270 - Introductory Structural Mechanics
Location: Physics Building 223
Visit: Monday, October 26, 2009 8:15 am - -9:25 am.

It was a typical lecture class. With my observations we can disucss why do we have such classes in engineering and what is the role such classes can play.

"Design" "Classification"

Dorst describing the design process says:

The designer, in his/her paradoxical problematic situation, needs to construct a design that transcends or connects the different discourses, in a general sense (by the construction of a meta-discourse), or just in the concrete instance of the design-to-be developed. To do this, the designer has to step out of the ways of thinking embodied in the discourses. This step is likely to include a strong intuitive element. Based upon a clear understanding of the discourses, and upon earlier experiences with paradoxical situations, a solution is created that needs to be evaluated from the standpoints of all the different discourses (i.e., to see that the solution is valuable within the relevant discourses). Designers use their understanding of the ways of thinking within the different discourses to create a framework in which a solution is possible for the paradoxical situation. The paradoxical problem situation works as both a trigger to creative imagination and as a context for the evaluation of the design. For the solution to be a solution, it needs to be recognized as such in the contexts of all the relevant discourses.

This description reminded me the notion of statically indeterminate problems that we have in engineering structural analysis. Let me try to see if I can describe this intuitive spark here. The above description of design says that we cannot get to design by staying in the ways of thinking embodied in the discourses. That is a design problem is indeterminate by staying within the ways of thinking of the discourses. "The paradoxical problem situation works as both a trigger …" (the paradox makes it determinate). We have to get to a solution that meets standpoints of all the different discourses. Sounds like solving simultaneous equations; isn’t it!

In structural analysis we have statically determinate problems and statically indeterminate problems. We also have linear and nonlinear problems. This classification of structural analysis problems is based on the kind of knowledge and process needed for reaching to a solution. In the class we used the "Boundary Work" tool to understand design. What I was thinking that can we use "classification" as a tool that we used in earlier classes to understand design and that might provide some new or better insights. We can classify different types of design perhaps based on the kind of knowledge and thinking process needed. Something like Bloom’s taxonomy. I looked up Google with the term "Taxonomy of Design" and it led me to at least one site [click here] where someone is considering something like that.

Is it valuable to analyze "design" by "classification"?

Reading about Critical Thinking (Noddings Chap 5)

I would like to express my appreciation to how Noddings has treated the subject of critical thinking in chapter 5. The idea that formal logic can be used to learn critical thinking is a limited one was sort of obvious to me but provided a good start for discussion. The discussion started to become interesting when Paul and McPeck came into discussion. Paul asks for dialogue for one to be able to know oneself but it then has the potential to reduce objectivity and accuracy. Paul calls for critical thinking to be open and available for all. McPeck on the other hand feels that critical thinking can only be taught in a domain specific way but then it would make education elitist.

By the time I reached to the point of reading the "alternate approach" I started wondering what we are talking here. If we combine all the ideas then critical thinking does not stand a chance to be taught. Then I read on page 102 "critical thinking is itself now at risk". This is what I liked that the reading directed me to an idea. Once I made my idea, the author then concurred with it.

What to do now. I thought that there must be some way to make it workable. Critical thinking alone seems to be hanging in the space. Is there something that can help it out? And then Noddings helps us to find that anchor. Morality provides an anchor. The reasoning and argument we do is for the purpose of making the world better.

Pedagogical neutrality is another interesting concept. It requires that the teacher provides all the perspectives to an idea but does not take side with any one perspective. I then thought that can it be done. Can this be left to the students which side to take? The last para on page 104 sums it all well. As she then puts it, Pedagogical neutrality is not the same as moral or intellectual neutrality. As a teacher I must let students have access to all perspectives irrespective of if I agree with any of them or not. But then I may have my own moral intellectual stand which I can share with my student.

I feel that the chapter provides a good example of pedagogical neutrality.

Noddings Chapters 1-4

Socrates and Plato seemed more interested in student learning than teaching. The method of dialogue used by Socrates meant to direct a student to think towards a particular opinion. It was the questions in the social/political domain that fascinated him that he used to discuss with his pupils. The purpose was for the pupils to know the right ways so that they could do the right. Plato believed that students should be taught to their capacities and so not all should have exactly the same education. He also made functional categorize of education for 1) workers and artisans, 2) soldiers 3) rulers.

Dewey seems to have greater influence on today’s education. Dewey considered education as a means for growth. He considered experience as what provides education and something which make student interested to engage in a new experience. The idea of growth however has been questioned by other philosopher because it seems aim less. Dewey’s considered growth as an end of its own and we must not make rigid directions for the growth. This is in contrast to Plato who categorized education and considered education as a means of helping the people learn the skill of their role on the society.

Dewey considered knowledge as the information or skills that we apply intelligently for inquiry. According to him humans use material from their prior experience to guide present inquiry and build new knowledge. This is similar to Piaget’s constructivism who called prior knowledge as schemata within which new knowledge assimilates or accommodates.

Analyzing teaching Komisar and Dewey believe that teachers can make students aware of various possibilities but it is the students who have to be involved in the learning process to reach to their own understanding. Dewey has even suggested that students should be involved to the level of constructing their own learning objectives. This is a important view. It hard to own the objectives set by someone else for you but if you as a student have identified or discovered the objectives of your learning on your own then it means a whole lot more for you.

The critical theory of Paulo Freire sets the objectives for education for it to be liberating for the student to know how dominant group can exploit their literacy. The education should help students be able to identify their own problems and should be able to solve them.

My reflections:

I think the conception of education, teaching and learning has seen evolution over time though the old traditions are still prevalent. In the time to come students will not only decided which broad field of study they want to study in but will also be involved in discovering the objectives of their learning which are specifically suitable to their context and prior knowledge. Education will help them become more critical and have the skills with knowledge to find solution that are specific to the problem in hand.