I always read the Preface before getting into a book as it gives me a feel for what the author intended in writing his or her book. The first line in Petroski's Preface really struck me- "Though ours is an age of high technology, the essence of what engineering is and what engineers do is not common knowledge...This is so in part because engineering as a human endeavor is not yet integrated into our culture and intellectual tradition". This is further supported by a report from the National Academies of Engineering that stated "Although everyone is surrounded by products that are the results of engineering, the connection is rarely spelled out."
In the last few decades in science education there has been a big push to include the Nature of Science (NoS) and the Scientific Enerprise in state and national standards. Both the Benchmarks for Science Literacy and the National Science Education Standards have detailed NoS standards and are Maine Learning Results also have NoS standards based on these 2 documents. The current NGSS is also wrestling with K-12 NoS standards and proficiencies. Research papers on K-12 students' and teachers' conceptions of NoS appear in the NARST (National Association for Research in Science Teaching) journals regularly and go to any NSTA Conference and you will see presentations on the NoS. But alas, where is the Nature of Engineering or The Engineering Endeavor? One could say it is implicitly included in the STS (Science, Technology, and Society) standards, but unless it is explicit, it doesn't get taught and it gets muddled with science. Misconceptions and stereotypes about engineering and science abound as a result. For example, people often confuse engineering with science or credit the creation of great engineering feats such as the Hubble Space Telescope to scientists. And how many teachers engage their students in design activities where students apply the science they learn but still call it scientific inquiry and approach it as such? And it doesn't help when standards and curricula began by calling it technological design, and now switch to calling it engineering design.
Clearly we now need to explicitly teach engineering - both engineering design, the nature of engineering, and the engineering endeavor- just as we have for science as inquiry, nature of science, and the scientific enterprise. Thankfully the new Framework for K-12 Science Education, released last year by the National Research Council, has recognized this need for change by identifying disciplinary core ideas and practices related to engineering. The Next Generation Science Standards (still in draft form) will describe the K-12 proficiencies, by grade band, related to these core ideas and practices.
So thankfully we are now on a path to addressing the concerns Petroski voiced 2 decades ago. Unfortunately it has taken us two decades to get to the point where we are now realizing the critical importance of K-12 engineering in the curriculum. But change is slow and hard. As SCITEC and TIES teachers, you have been the vanguards of this effort to infuse engineering into K-12 science (and some of our high schools even offer it as a separate course). Do you think this will be a big adjustment for schools and teachers when the NGSS are released and implementation efforts begin? How do you think your involvement in the PD offered through TIES and SCITEC will advance your school's or district's efforts to include engineering?
In the last few decades in science education there has been a big push to include the Nature of Science (NoS) and the Scientific Enerprise in state and national standards. Both the Benchmarks for Science Literacy and the National Science Education Standards have detailed NoS standards and are Maine Learning Results also have NoS standards based on these 2 documents. The current NGSS is also wrestling with K-12 NoS standards and proficiencies. Research papers on K-12 students' and teachers' conceptions of NoS appear in the NARST (National Association for Research in Science Teaching) journals regularly and go to any NSTA Conference and you will see presentations on the NoS. But alas, where is the Nature of Engineering or The Engineering Endeavor? One could say it is implicitly included in the STS (Science, Technology, and Society) standards, but unless it is explicit, it doesn't get taught and it gets muddled with science. Misconceptions and stereotypes about engineering and science abound as a result. For example, people often confuse engineering with science or credit the creation of great engineering feats such as the Hubble Space Telescope to scientists. And how many teachers engage their students in design activities where students apply the science they learn but still call it scientific inquiry and approach it as such? And it doesn't help when standards and curricula began by calling it technological design, and now switch to calling it engineering design.
Clearly we now need to explicitly teach engineering - both engineering design, the nature of engineering, and the engineering endeavor- just as we have for science as inquiry, nature of science, and the scientific enterprise. Thankfully the new Framework for K-12 Science Education, released last year by the National Research Council, has recognized this need for change by identifying disciplinary core ideas and practices related to engineering. The Next Generation Science Standards (still in draft form) will describe the K-12 proficiencies, by grade band, related to these core ideas and practices.
So thankfully we are now on a path to addressing the concerns Petroski voiced 2 decades ago. Unfortunately it has taken us two decades to get to the point where we are now realizing the critical importance of K-12 engineering in the curriculum. But change is slow and hard. As SCITEC and TIES teachers, you have been the vanguards of this effort to infuse engineering into K-12 science (and some of our high schools even offer it as a separate course). Do you think this will be a big adjustment for schools and teachers when the NGSS are released and implementation efforts begin? How do you think your involvement in the PD offered through TIES and SCITEC will advance your school's or district's efforts to include engineering?
I am concerned about how to implement engineering in my classroom. I want it to be integrated not an extra unattached concept. I think it will be a HUGE challenge for some schools to implement. I am hopeful that my experiences with SCITEC will help to prepare me to use engineering ideas in my classroom. Also I will be able to share my experiences with other teachers in my district. On a personal note, my daughter's science experiences at the high school level have included engineering in 2 of her science classes. Of course one reason may have been that 1 of her teachers has an engineering background. I am wondering where do I begin? What resources are there for primary teachers? To what extent should we teach it? Am I already doing some of it? Many questions are running through my mind. I would love to hear how it works in the primary classroom.
ReplyDeleteKathy, I am hoping we will get many resources for teaching engineering from the experts at the Museum of Science this week. The challenge will be to gear it to our grade levels and make it meaningful to the students.
DeleteHi Kathy:
DeleteI am new at this, and struggling with how to integrate all four STEM disciplines into what I do. At the workshop I attended, Page and others made it clear that we didn't need to do all four together all the time, which was a relief. For me, I've been thinking about my curriculum for the fall and imagining how and where engineering design will fit in. I am figuring out that many projects can be easily tweaked to incorporate STEM. For example, last time we studied the solar system, my students made scale models of a planet. This time, I will have them make mobiles, which will have to be to scale according to the mass of the planets, to get them to balance, so they will have to design them accordingly.
I think that you could look at the projects your students already do, and try to add a dimension of design into it. Hopefully you will be surprised at how much you already do, and how easy a fit this can be.
I am hopeful that some of what I do already incorporates the foundation of engineering. I guess I need some reassurance from others. Designing is definitely part of our work for example as a part of our unit on solids the children design a ramp that will allow their solids to roll the furthest. There are failures until after lots of testing the children have one that works.
DeleteWhile I think I can teach some engineering units to my 3rd-5th grade students, I also have concerns about my efforts being part of a continuum in my district. We are currently developing "Measurement Topics" as we move towards a Proficiency based learning model. Right now, not surprisingly, there is no strand for Engineering. My guess is that it might fall under science, but as it stands the closest we come is an NoS strand called "Technological Design." I'd like some clarification on this. What exactly is the difference between technological design and engineering design? And I know I've asked this before, but where exactly does invention fit into all of this? (I can't help thinking of your grandfather's patents, Page. Surely they represent inventions?) Are these overlapping concepts? Help me out here.
ReplyDeleteMrs. Kaber, I share your concern about the continuum of learning and engineering. I am hoping this initiative is strong and focused and will become the norm and part of the everyday discussion with students throughout the grade levels. It also can be integrated throughout all disciplines. Actually it is already, just not explicitly conveyed to our students that way. For example, in Kindergarten, drawing, block play, writing, is engineering. In 5th grade, boat building, bridge building etc are all engineering. Asking "how would you..." questions is engineering. Just observing students play at recess, pulling a BayBlade, pumping their legs while swinging, using the glider, is all engineering.
DeleteWhat are "Measurement Topics"?
Linda - I think your reply is nicely on-point -any, "how would you" question can be considered engineering training, as well any problem with constrained solutions - so, any problem. One of the main changes always seems to be vocabulary more than content. Some of this seems a little like spin - if we call playing with blocks engineering, then perhaps more people will think about engineering careers, and more people will develop a concept of what an engineer does, at least broadly speaking. The good news is, the fact that many of the skills and concepts are already being taught and now need to be relabeled should mean that implementation won't be too painful.
DeleteMrs. Kaber your question about invention vs. engineering is an interesting one. In general most patents are just slightly more original solutions to existing problems. A better (or at least different) mouse trap. People who work as mechanical engineers (in particular) working for companies regularly solve problems in new and better ways and then patent those solutions so the company can regain its investment in the development. Structural engineers regularly provide unique solutions - but usually to unique problems (this bridge, here). Inventor-like, but rarely patentable. On the other hand, many engineers provide non-unique solutions to basically previously solved problems - not inventions, just engineering, and some inventors create new widgets that don't necessarily solve an existing problem - inventors, but not really engineering.
And finally back to Page - I am greatly looking forward to the day when we have students coming into the university who already have an idea what engineering is and what engineers do (even non-engineering students).
Hi enn and all,
DeleteI totally agree about the vocabulary part and that is a pretty easy thing to do that would have a big impact.
So it sounds like there is overlap between engineers and inventors. Engineers may or may not be inventors and vice versa.
DeleteI agree that bringing engineering more to the forefront in early education is to a large extent changing the way we talk about things. And this may make it easier. I would caution, though, the language we use is not a small thing. After all, words represent concepts. Also, the way we use language can have a great impact on how children view themselves and their world. (And, of course, the same is true for adults.) I have recently been reading "Opening Minds: using language to change lives" by Peter Johnston. (Some of you may be familiar with his earlier book, "Choice Words.") While I don't agree with everything he says, I do buy much of it and think that the words we choose to use with students can help them view themselves as agents of change and make them more willing to take risks in learning. The evidence he presents for this is often quite impressive.
I agree that the language we use with our students and colleagues is as important as what changes in emphasis and practice within our curriculum. We can use this blog as an avenue to practice using consistent language with each other and further refine it as we put it into practice. Any teacher who has created unit for their classroom has been involved with engineering and possibly inventing as well.
DeleteLanguage is vital!
DeleteI love that we are starting this discussion on engineering. Everything around us, what we use,how we use it, etc is engineered in some way. "man made engineering or natural engineering" One thing I want to say, from the start, is that there also needs to be a state initiative to bring engineering jobs and creativity back to Maine. This may be just what sparks that initiative.
ReplyDeleteI teach Kindergarten and so wish there was something mentioned in my curriculum concerning engineering. I can't wait to see the NGSS document.
A couple of things, in regard to the book so far, I love the focus Petroski communicates to us that we are human and we make mistakes and that is how we learn. This is so important and a message we need to present to our students. Trial and error lead to amazing ideas. And, who out there won't think twice about driving over a bridge now???? I have to cross over the Bath Bridge quite often. I want to really research how that one was made! :)
I was really excited to see the draft of the NGSS for many reasons. I agree with you Page, we need to purposefully include the teaching of engineering design in our curricula. Students need to understand that engineering isn't just about building a road or a bridge, but about taking an idea, trying to implement it and reworking it until you get it the way you want it.
ReplyDeleteI have been teaching for 28 years, and I have observed that students now are much less likely to try a hard math problem (for example). They come to me and say, I don't know how to do this, but their paper is blank. Even when I "get them started", if they get stuck, they are much more likely to give up.
I'm not far into Petroski's book yet (it arrived Saturday!), however I love the premise that failure is an important part of achievement. To me, this must be explicitly taught to our students who live in a world where they rarely have to put in an effort to get their needs met. Just think about 30 years ago, the amount of time, energy an negotiating skills a student had to put in to doing a research paper (being driven to libraries, getting, hauling around and reading books, buying & writing notecards, getting paper and using typewriters...) At each point, there was a possibility for failure: no car, no money, the book needed is out, and yet the paper still needed to be written. Students had to figure a way around the obstacles to meet with success. Now it can all be done on one machine, sitting on a couch (including submitting the paper).
I believe that through the purposeful teaching of engineering design we can help students develop the ability to perceive obstacles as challenges to overcome, instead of impediments to learning.
Mary Ellen, what great points you make.
Delete"...students who live in a world where they rarely have to put in an effort to get their needs met."
This we have to address! We see that everyday with students. We say, "They are not motivated!" This is because life has become so easy in some ways. Technology, engineering, etc have made living easy. It is like a double edge sword. We should remember the age old motto - anything in moderation.
There were a few "big ideas" that stood out for me as I began to read. In the preface, Petroski stated that, "..Making something that has not existed before is central to engineering." That seems to me to be a definition for which I can start to think about engineering. Also the idea of needing failure before there can be success is so true. It is that old saying about try and try again. He mentioned that in order to addvance technology there needs to be a lot of effort put into the failures and the successes. I think we encourage our students to try to reach goals and expand their thinking all the time.
ReplyDeleteChange is slow and hard, but change is constant. I think if Professional Development opportunities are provided in the area of teaching engineering that teachers can relate to, see the relevance of, and provide the overall background knowledge, schools and teachers will
ReplyDeletereadily implement the standards effectively.
There is no doubt the opportunities for PD I have engaged in through TIES have been worthwhile, knowledge building,and enhanced the classroom experience for students during the past school year.