A few thoughts on how engineering is and isn't presented in the book (at least through the first half...).
One piece that seems to be missing from Petroski's piece, and from the generalized view of "lets have engineering education in grade school" is the idea of engineering as a profession. In general, people within the field have a tighter definition of what it is to be an engineer than those without. Part of it includes the ethics portion of the profession - public safety first and then various other bits about being honorable members of society and so forth. The other is that generally we are using well tested mathematical and scientific principles to solve a problem, rather than (or in addition to) personal experience, anecdotes and feel. I have great respect for builders and mechanics and electricians who solve real world problems based on their intuition and experience, and the good ones regularly come up with excellent solutions, but I have trouble considering it engineering (this is not a judgment - I don't consider teachers or doctors or police engineers either, and they all solve problems and have my respect too). Perhaps part of this rambling thought is that in the same way that scientists are defined in great part by their use of the scientific method, engineers are defined in large part (for me) by our use of an engineering method (which IS described by Petroski).
Another piece of engineering that I haven't yet seen in Petroski's book is the social side of engineering. Many of us work with all sorts of people like home-owners, plant managers, lawyers, etc. Most of think of a doctor's bedside manner and a lawyer's courtroom style, but very few think of the communication portion of engineering. I think this is vital to fix both because for many of us it is the personal interactions that make the profession worthwhile and because it is important to help engineers-to-be develop the skills of writing, talking and otherwise communicating. Petroski is a nice example of an engineer who communicates well
One other piece of this book that is nagging at me with regards to the profession of engineering, is that it focuses a lot on the big and spectacular. I'm not sure that enticing people with tales of superstars is a very honest means to an end. Very few people will ever design a Brooklyn Bridge or a trip to the moon. This is similar to offering major league professional athletes and hot-shot trial lawyers as real -world examples of what the profession is like. To me it seems de-humanizing - it's hard to really imagine what it would be like to play in the big leagues. It's easy to think about coaching high school track. In my experience, most of engineering involves solving interesting but not ground-breaking problems while working with other people in various fields, and occasionally we get a real doozie of a problem and are hopefully up to solving it. A great career without being scary.
What are some of your thoughts on engineering? Where is the line between being a doctor and helping people out with their health (if there is one)? Should we focus on the stars, or the real world, as we push to bring people into the field of engineering? I'd love to hear some views on the engineering as presented in our book, or just on engineering itself.
In our society we have drawn very strong lines around professions. You can only be a doctor if you have a medical degree. You can only be an engineer if you have a degree in engineering. However, I would posit that to practice medicine or engineering or any other profession, what you really need are knowledge and experience. You say that engineers are using well tested mathematical and scientific principles to solve a problem, but do you have to be a professional engineer to do that? It seems to me that anyone who has an interest in the field can learn by reading and doing.
ReplyDeleteI think the reason that Petroski uses the "big and spectacular" is to hold the reader's interest. My take on this book is that it is written primarily for a lay audience rather than engineers themselves. I haven't gotten far enough into the book yet to have encountered those examples, but I would suggest that he uses them for the same reason that he uses the example of a baby as an engineer - to connect with the readers who are not themselves engineers.
But I am most taken with your comment of "let's have engineering in grade school." After all, why should we? Don't we already have enough to teach?And why engineering? Why not medicine, or mining, or agriculture? (Of course, we are already encouraged to teach agriculture.) I don't think it's necessarily because we want kids to be engineers, any more than we teach them poetry because we want them to be poets. We teach poetry because we want kids to love language, to play with it, to appreciate and use some of the concepts and skills in their own writing, and to understand, as much as possible, poems that they run across. I would assume we want to teach engineering for much the same reasons.
You make very good points.
DeleteThe reason "you can only do X if you have Y" is a society constraint. A society functions much better if those practicing a profession are forced to have some minimum set of recognizable credentials. (What if anyone could put up a shingle and claim to be a medical doctor? Yikes!) The degree of licensing varies across the country. For example, in some places wiring can only be done by a licensed electrician and plumbing by a licensed plumber.
"What you really need are knowledge and experience" is very true in whatever one wishes to do. Schooling and licensing are simply ways to convey that knowledge and experience to others.
I believe that students in primary and secondary schools are already introduced to engineering, but it is often not stated as such. Any time you create something new or useful from the materials you have available is engineering. At its core, engineering is a creative process that produces something of value to some group of people.
I recall a quote that goes something like this: A scientist discovers what is, an engineer creates what does not exist.
It's true that I probably wouldn't want someone operating on me who didn't have proper licensing!! On the other hand, historically there are have been a lot of constraints on who could be a member of a given profession. Now we want more women engineers, but it wasn't all THAT long ago that women were thought not capable of performing in certain professions.
DeleteJudy - I'm with you. I don't necessarily promote teaching engineering in grade school, but that is my narrow view of engineering. I definitely think that the more types of problems kids are engaged in solving and the more types of solutions and ways of finding solutions they see and find the more options they will have later in life. I don't really separate poetry from engineering from teaching in that sense. All fields are about solving problems, and every field has developed tools which tend to work well within it to solve its own problems. Petroski seems to enjoy having been exposed to the ways his wife attacks problems, and I'm sure it makes him a better engineer. I would rather mix everything together all a-jumble so that we are not trained to only use the wrench in the garage and the hammer in the house. I did enjoy the superstar section on Maillart because it speaks to the mixing of the tools of an artist with those of an engineer.
DeleteI had the same take on the book (so far) as Judy, probably because of my science-art background. Some may believe that K-5 education is all about pragmatic skill building, and it is, but I always felt that getting students to use metacognition about mental processes was and is a pragmatic skill. The mental approaches to problem-solving do transcend disciplines, and more so professions! In K-5 one would teach the engineering design approach, as well as perhaps some neglected experience actually handling materials and thinking creatively!
ReplyDeletePerhaps because I have not known engineers who could communicate well about what they do, I myself had a stereotype of engineer-as-technician. I suspect that they stop talking about it because most people's eyes glaze over, just like it is nearly impossible to talk about art with folks with no background knowledge to even stand on. Like most professions, most practitioners are competent and solid- the bedrock of society, a few maybe not, and a very few able to transcend what has come before. I think the qualities that allow those latter few to pioneer forward are the point the author is making, as well as the point that genius emerges from a common human nature that we all share. The products of genius may be spectacular, but the person is still just a human being. Like Einstein said (something like) "The difference between me and any other curious person is just that I stay with problems longer".
I was delighted by the mention of The Code of Hammurabi (pg 9) encouraging sound construction, but discouraging innovation (If you do not get this correct you will die! says the evil teacher in my 5th grade son's graphic novel) , and the recognition that it is in the nature of humans to want to go beyond the past. In order to not be "immobilized" by risk, both artists and engineers need to imagine solutions first. My students are so inexperienced at imagining a solution that might not be correct, so insecure, that I can only think that not enough time is spent in elementary school on this aspect of their minds!
Postscript thought:
ReplyDeleteMy favorite book of all time on design is "Design for the Real World" by Victor Papanek, an industrial designer. The book was published in 1971, and has an introduction by Bucky Fuller. Setting: the "Blue Marble" photo had been released to the public, the term "appropriate design" coined, and Stewart Brand's Whole Earth Catalogue came out chock full of cool down-to-earth design solutions for problems that had just been recognized and recognized as solvable! I was 16 years old and completely in love with this book! It was such an optimistic time, like a new world, and anyone could be and benefit from engineering.
In Part 2, How It Could Be, Chapter7 "Rebel with a Cause", he writes:
"It is the prime function of a designer to solve problems. My own view is that the designer must also be more sensitive in realizing what problems exist. Frequently a designer will "discover" the existence of a problem that no one had suspected before, will define that problem and then attempt to solve it. This can be read as a definition of the creative process."
A few examples from the book:
The first birth-control pill wheels for the illiterate, plastic fake "burrs" for erosion control, ergonomic and adaptive furniture, water pumps from used tires, the bean-bag chair, childproof pill containers, juice can radio receivers for Africa...
little stuff, low risk engineering with huge human impact
I liked this statement: "Another piece of engineering that I haven't yet seen in Petroski's book is the social side of engineering. Many of us work with all sorts of people like home-owners, plant managers, lawyers, etc. Most of think of a doctor's bedside manner and a lawyer's courtroom style, but very few think of the communication portion of engineering. I think this is vital to fix both because for many of us it is the personal interactions that make the profession worthwhile and because it is important to help engineers-to-be develop the skills of writing, talking and otherwise communicating."
ReplyDeleteUMaine engineering departments each have an external advisory committee that meets with departments at least once a year. In all my interactions with our external advisory committee their primary complaint about all the "fresh" engineers they encounter is their poor communication skills, both written and oral. Getting students to recognize the importance of communication skills is difficult. Engineering students are usually more intent on the hard core engineering aspects of their work and shun putting effort into communicating their work.
In my experience, the very best and most successful engineers are those that excel at communication. But, my guess is that this is true in most professions simply because social aspects play such a big role in our society. I suppose if I were a violin maker and make only a dozen expensive violins a year, the ability to communicate does not play that much of a role in my success. This is not the case in most engineering jobs. Most engineering jobs require a lot of collaboration and presentation.
I found this interesting: "One other piece of this book that is nagging at me with regards to the profession of engineering, is that it focuses a lot on the big and spectacular. I'm not sure that enticing people with tales of superstars is a very honest means to an end. Very few people will ever design a Brooklyn Bridge or a trip to the moon. This is similar to offering major league professional athletes and hot-shot trial lawyers as real -world examples of what the profession is like. To me it seems de-humanizing - it's hard to really imagine what it would be like to play in the big leagues. It's easy to think about coaching high school track."
ReplyDeleteI believe that the author focuses "on the big and spectacular" because that garners people's attention and sells books. If he was talking about the minutia that embodies much of engineering, who would buy the book and then start a blog about it?
And this: "In my experience, most of engineering involves solving interesting but not ground-breaking problems while working with other people in various fields, and occasionally we get a real doozie of a problem and are hopefully up to solving it. A great career without being scary."
Gosh, if this is true, why do we have such a hard time getting students interested in becoming engineers? A great career without being scary sounds pretty appealing, as does working with other people in various fields.
What's the problem here?
On top of that the pay is pretty darn good and jobs are available even now.
Way too many times I have heard that engineering is too hard or that you have to be really smart to be an engineer. How are those true?
I agree that the author does focus on the few big successes and disasters in engineering history but I had to read about these to really think deeply about his real message, risk, attempts, failure, ideas, creativity.
DeleteEngineering careers are still seen as the big "Wows". Thank goodness, because they should be. It is amazing that anyone can be part of a profession where any problem, big or little, can be worked on. It really is like teaching. Everyday we are faced with problems, big and little, that we work on. Isn't that what makes it scary but fun? So, I guess what I am saying or asking is, "What would a job be like if it was always the same, not scary at times, not challenging?"
Duane - I wonder - this same guy wrote a book about the pencil. Perhaps I should read it... Satisfy my need for the normal scale. I think the lack of getting people into engineering is partly because we focus on the big. There is no doubt that math is an important aspect of engineering, but for many engineers the required math is mostly early algebra and a bit of geometry. The 'hard' parts are being creative on demand and staying organized. Like the hard parts of teaching.
DeleteI'm glad that we are working on defining exactly what an engineer is. For me, there is a difference between engineers who have studied engineering and do this as a profession, and others who use basic principles to do what I would call "acts of engineering." (As Petroski puts it, "we are all engineers of sorts...")
ReplyDeleteI know that there are many different subfields within the broader category of engineering, such as civil engineering, structural engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, etc. While not endless, I'm sure there are many categories that I haven't listed and some that I may not even be aware of.
Here's another question: Are (some) computer programmers engineers since they are designing in the virtual world?
There's computer engineering and computer science degrees. Computer engineers usually focus on the interaction between software and hardware. For example, the electronic control of your microwave oven is a computer engineer's job because the software that you interact with on the front panel controls the operation of the microwave, e.g., the magnetron, light, etc. Another example would be the software that takes the electrical input from the touch screen on your phone or iPad and makes it responsive to gestures you make with your touches. The fact that the screen reacts to your touches in an inherently intuitive human way comes from the software that interprets the electrical signals from the touch surface.
DeleteComputer science on the other hand is usually only associated with software, like Microsoft Word or your web browser. There is no real hardware to be controlled but the generic features of the computer itself.
I would say that most computer programmers are engineers in that they create something that did not exist. I would say that Facebook is an engineering example that is essentially entirely software written by computer programmers. Whether the world is virtual or real does not matter. The virtual world of Facebook has inherent value to humans, just as the real world of your microwave oven does.
I agree that we are all engineers of sorts. I consider cooking to be a prime example of engineering. The ability to put together items in a unique way that is of value is engineering.
I have been intrigued by the comments on this topic. I would like to state that as a second grade teacher I would never try to be an"engineer". My hope is that I expose and provide learning opportunities for all of my students that touch upon many different professions. I need to expand their knowledge about the world around them.
ReplyDeleteI also appreciate everyone's comments. It is really great that we have such a wonderfully diverse group of folks participating here.
ReplyDeleteAs a middle school teacher, I teach problem solving skills, communication skills and the understanding that failure leads to learning. I do emphasize communication though. I believe that a person does not have a complete understanding of a concept until they can explain it to someone else. All of these are certainly essential abilities to be successful in life.
Agreed - this has been a fabulous thread and amazing group of bloggers! As I read through the comments, I keep wishing the forum had a "like" button option similar to Facebook - so many thoughtful and reflective posts. Keep it coming!
ReplyDeleteIn Henry Petroski’s , To Engineer is Human, Chapter Three , Lesson’s From Play, Lesson’s From Life, pages 31 to 34, Henry shared the “sling shot” story experiences with his son. Over periods of time, combined multiple, and finally successful attempts, to create the best slingshot, one that would,” outperform any the catalogues had to offer.”
ReplyDeleteHe shared the human side, between father and son, the failures, hopes, the lessons of disciplined perseverance, and the final satisfaction of creating the best slingshot.
On pages 35 to 39 we find, Oliver Wendell Holmes, a superstar of sorts, “The Deacon’s Masterpiece.” Between pages 31 and 39, we have two examples of modeling; the first being, a dad and his son, engaged in experiences, prompted by the son’s interest in slingshot’s. The son has ownership, is spending substantial time with a highly significant adult, and together develop a new, improved , personalized slingshot that will function effectively.
I see the second example as a superstar’s story.
In a district where poverty permeates, where many parents are challenged to provide a reasonable standard of living, where time is consumed, out of necessity, where children live in multiple households, and little money, time, and energy is left for extras, the majority of parents would be, for multiple reasons challenged to provide what Henry Petroski did with his son.
The stories of Superstars may help those students without “Petroski type” role models.
As a Second Grade teacher, I would use Superstar stories, in conjunction with engineering activities that; engage the students at their developmental level, where they share ownership, can individually experience learning within interdisciplinary settings; incorporating mathematics, cooperative group discussions, written responses, thereby providing a greater compendium of success. Rather than, in isolation, trying to draw individuals into the profession of engineering, with stories of superstars.
From your perspective, does this make sense?