STEAM not STEM 25

[Gumpmaster]

Where is engineering going? Down the tubes is the only place I can guess.

Some in the USA are trying to put the arts on par with engineering:

Oregonian STEAM Article

STEAM not STEM website

-So, should we water down our engineering education even further so we can be more artistic?
-Are arts really as important as the science and math portions of an education?
-Is this just an attempt by those with a less technical education to justify themselves?
-Does congress really need a STEAM caucus?

 

[burningDiesel]

Art without engineering is dreaming. Engineering without art is calculating.

Who is the artist? The architect who designs a building of steel and glass, or the structural engineer who builds it?

Example building

You don's see many people interviewing structural engineer Yasutaka Konishi, but everybody is in awe of the amazing architect "who designed the building".
But I guess the engineer got paid enough

 

[KENAT]

Gumpmaster, I presumed that anything that earns you a BA was an art;-).

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[CheckerHater]

It actually does exist: link

 

[rconnor]

The concept behind the "A" in STEAM is not to make sure engineers can design more unnecessarily elaborate, convoluted, and "prettier" machines. Nor is the idea to make engineering education easier or "watered-down" (the concept relates to high schools more than it does university curriculums by the way). The idea is that they foster the creativity required to attack new problems and develop innovative solutions. When this creativity is coupled with the technical understanding to actually develops those solutions, it makes for an effective combination.

Carl Sagan, as he so often did, said it best:
"We wish to pursue the truth no matter where it leads. But to find the truth, we need imagination and skepticism both."

However, I don't believe the current problem is that there is not enough right-brain education but that science and math is currently taught to students in such a soulless, sterile, fact-memorization-to-pass-a-test manner. We wring out any natural curiosity and sense of wonder that kids come into the science classroom with. It’s a sad truth but our science education system is the single greatest deterrent to kids wanting to become scientists and engineers (note: I don’t blame teachers, at least not all of them as a whole, but the current curriculum).

The body of science is, to me, the crown jewel of human accomplishment. Our ability to comprehend concepts on astronomic and atomic scales, which are so far beyond what our naturally evolved senses are tuned to, is such a marvelous tribute to our species. The science classroom should be a place where these accomplishments are celebrated and the awe and wonder of science is instilled in kids. Instead we beat formulas into them, with no context of how they were developed or why they are beautiful and important.

Oddly enough, the history classroom is trying to make in-roads into this for us. There is a concept of teaching history, called Big History, which describes the story of our past from the big bang, through stellar evolution, planet formation, biological evolution and human development. Not only does this foster a profound sense of interest in science, it also has sociological benefits as well. Teaching kids the concept that not only are we related to all other humans biological, we are connected to our planet chemically and our universe atomically (paraphrased from a Neil DeGrasse Tyson quote). This gives a sense of place and purpose to the lost, a sense of connectivity to the lonely and a sense of grandeur to the meek, three things that kids struggle with.

A couple lines after the Sagan quote I gave above he says, “The cosmos is full beyond measure of elegant truths; of exquisite interrelationships; of the awesome machinery of nature.” Statements like that are what we need more of in our science education...

 

[DRWeig]

So, if students haven't been learning STEM subjects, and haven't been learning Arts, then what have they been spending their time on?

Business and Law, the two most populous colleges at most major universities in the US.

That's a couple hundred thousand (my guess) new graduates each year whose career goals are to either limit our income (MBA) or take our income away completely (JD, LLD). Both groups, of course, will be pocketing the lion's share of what they suck from our wallets.

Best to you,

Goober Dave

Haven't see the forum policies? Do so now: Forum Policies

 

[CheckerHater]

Acquaintance of mine got a job as teacher of Physics in college. To his astonishment he found that there are no pre-requisites for the course. That is – no mathematical background required.
So he had to teach Physics without using formulas, otherwise students would complain. I wonder if more Art could help…

 

[kingnero]

how do you teach physics without usng any formulas?
I can see it happen: Archimedes discovered how buoyancy worked (works) by taking a bath, where some of the water was displaced by some of the volume of hos body...
and yet could separate pure gold from a gold-silver alloy by measuring the difference in overflowed water. if he was raised without formulae, the King would still be wearing a cheap, knock-off crown! (remember, greater-than and equal-to and such are formulae!)

 

[SomptingGuy]

"Formula"?

That's the engineering equivalent of a "recipe" for cooks. Don't understand why it works, but willing to use it anyway.

To teach physics, you need to teach relationships and let the students derive formulae from them whenever required.

- Steve

 

[CheckerHater]

The problem is, in order to "derive" formula you have first to know what formula is.

No wonder there are more good recipes than good cooks...

 

[Twoballcane]

I am privileged that I have a daughter in a Math and Science Charter school and before that I was looking into STEM programs so I have some knowledge of what their curriculum is composed of. Both the charter school and STEM programs have art and history as part of their program, so I’m not sure where these instigators are coming from. However, the big difference between main stream and STEM / Charter is that there is more focus and depth on the math and sciences. Also, I have found that main stream math and science teachers are more passive in their teachings and most often education generalist than an astute professional in these fields. The STEM / Charter will most likely have a math and science teacher who was a professional in an engineering or science field. My daughter’s math teacher is a semi retired Mechanical Engineer and her biology teacher was a Biologist who worked for colleges and companies. Even the principal of the charter school is an Electrical Engineer. Now, in terms of work load in class and home work, art and history are much lighter and the math and science are much heavier. The ratio of class time to home work load for the math and sciences follows the engineer college class’s rule of thumb of one hour of class to two hours of home work.

“The science classroom should be a place where these accomplishments are celebrated and the awe and wonder of science is instilled in kids. Instead we beat formulas into them, with no context of how they were developed or why they are beautiful and important.”

Math and science is a very dry subject. It is either you have some passion for the subject or you don’t. Life both in school and as a professional you have to pass some sort of test be it an exam or your boss’s expectations on a quarterly basis. Life as a professional is about getting the job done, getting the innovation to work, and at the end, brings in the revenue. If we spend more time flowering and perfuming the subject than regimenting formulas and theory, the more we (USA) will fall back on the math, science, and engineering world stage. The leading countries kids know the subjects inside out. I’ve been at one of my daughter’s middle school math competition and guess what the majority nationality (who were American born) of the kids, yes Asian whose parents are from countries like Indian, China, and Japan. The parents who grew up with this regiment way of learning from their country instilled it into their American born children and outperforming American born parent’s children. While speaking with these parents, I have learned from them that the more hard work of solving math and science problems, the better you understand the subject versus dressing the subject up and hoping your child understands. In other words, every child is smart; it’s the hard work and regiment dedication that will set them apart.


Tobalcane
"If you avoid failure, you also avoid success."
“Luck is where preparation meets opportunity”
"People get promoted when they provide value and when they build great relationships"

 

[rconnor]

I enjoyed your post Twoballcane but I do, respectfully, have to disagree with you. However, before I get into it, I think it’s important to differentiate the direction both of us are coming at this from.

Your point seems to be focused on developing those with an interest and aptitude in science/math to their full potential. My point was far more general; it was gauged towards increasing the scientific understanding/critical thinking capacity of the populous. I come from this more general viewpoint because it relates very closely to what I feel is the crux of many societal issues but that is another, much longer, story.

When it comes to training someone to mastering any skill, repetitive training or intensive exposure is important; I don’t disagree with you here. However, there is a disconnect between repetitive training of mental math problems and a good engineer, just as there is between shooting 1000 free throws a day and being an NBA all-star. Mathematical proficiency is a tool that good engineers need but a good engineer needs other tools as well as the capacity to bring them all together in an effective manner.

The problem that I have with promoting proficiency through repetition is that it yields prescriptive problem solvers. They are great for handing a difficult, yet formulaic, problem to and having them grind through it. However, they require a prescribed problem to solve; they rarely have the imagination and creativity to ask what problem should be solved and why. This, to me, is crucial to an innovative society, which is crucial to a successful society.

Now, I don’t actually think that you are saying if we get engineering students to do 1000 math problems a day, and only that, they will be better engineers. However, you do seem to, rather flippantly, dismiss the concept of promoting scientific awe in the classroom as fluff. I think you do this partly because you extrapolate my comments to mean that I want all fluff and no hard, chalk-to-board, pencil-to-paper style math and science. This is not what I’m saying. I think subjects should be structured as such:
1) Introduction to the topic
2) History of the topic, going through past mistakes and developments which lead to the current understanding
3) Why the topic is important and interesting
4) pencil-to-paper style problem solving

Currently, we skip steps 2 and 3. So when you say “math and science is a dry subject”, I understand why you say that. Step 4 may not be “fun” however it’s downright painful without steps 2 and 3. Beyond being painful, it’s also futile. Napoleon said “The more I study the world, the more I am convinced of the inability of brute force to create anything durable”.

Sure, I could get a good grade in the subject, but I can do so by doing enough problems to develop a formulaic way of solving the problem without understanding any of the content. F=ma can be solved without really understanding what “F” is.

Not teaching kids why the subject is important and beautiful is to withhold the single greatest factor in them being interested and successful in that subject. I can’t begin to guess at the number of brilliant students we’ve pushed out of math and science (and into finance…) because of our “brute force” method of teaching (as well as an ill-placed notion that monetary wealth is the ultimate form of success…but that’s another topic).

Having said all this, I think we are actually closer to agreeing with each other than it appears. We both want an educated, scientific literate society (at least enough so to make an informed vote), we both want qualified, passionate teachers educating our youth (and should agree that teachers should make more money and have more prestige) and we both see scientific development as intrinsically linked to a prospering society. Where we appear to differ is the method. I enjoy differing opinions on this subject because it gets me thinking about it and I feel it is one of the most important topics to discuss.

 

[Twoballcane]

Rconnor, please take all of my post’s tone as two people sitting in a bar with drinks having a great conversation.

With that said, I do believe that the teachers do put their own spin on how to make the subject come alive and not come across in a monotone way. I’m sure they are doing what you have suggested in all four of your bullets. However, I can see this at the beginning of their teaching career, but maybe after five or ten years, they lose their enthusiasm. But, being parents, we are ultimately responsible for our children’s up bringing especially their education. I do not assume that my child’s teachers will give their one hundred percent effort to make sure my child understands the topic let alone instill passion. It is up to the parents to make up the slack. For myself, I don’t necessarily push my kids, but make sure they complete and understand all of their homework and projects. I take them to science based museums when I can. I do enjoy watching documentary shows based on math, science, and history. Since there is one tv in my house, my kids watch with me. Also, because of my work, I do show my own passion of the math and science in everyday situations and explain them to my kids. I guess that is why many children follow their parent’s career path. The parent’s passion for their career, such as engineering, will be exposed and absorbed by the child. I guess at the end, we cannot depend on our teachers to do more than what they have been trained.


Tobalcane
"If you avoid failure, you also avoid success."
“Luck is where preparation meets opportunity”
"People get promoted when they provide value and when they build great relationships"

 

[CheckerHater]

This discussion was giving me sense of déjà vu. I think I found where it’s coming from:

“'Two bodies attract each other directly as the product of their masses and inversely as the square of their distance.' It sounds like a rule for simple physical facts, does it not? Yet it is nothing of the sort; it was the poetical way the old ones bad of expressing the rule of propinquity which governs the emotion of love. The bodies referred to are human bodies, mass is their capacity for love. Young people have a greater capacity for love than the elderly; when they are thrown together, they fall in love, yet when they are separated they soon get over it.”

The future sure looks bright.

 

[rconnor]

Twoballcane,

Your kids are very fortunate to have a parent so invested in their education; I was as well. I do agree that it is ultimately the responsibility of the parent (and not the teacher) to ensure their children are being raised properly.

However, I believe that a teacher does (or should) have a responsibility to motivate children to learn and not just make sure they pass a test. It's like saying that a sports coach is solely responsible to develop technical ability and tactical awareness in players. Although those things are important, an equally important (if not increasing more important) responibility of a coach is to motivate and focus players, in order to squeeze out their full potential. This is done through exuding a passion and love for the game, which the players reciprocate; it kindles their passion. (I say this from experience, I coach high level youth (soccer) players)

Like a coach, a teacher's love for the subject is contagious. Kids have a natural sense of curiosity, they thirst for understanding. A teacher's job is not just to educate on the subject but to cultivate that intrigue.

I would agree with you that, in reality, this does not happen all the time. I just believe that it should or ought to. I don't blame teachers as a whole, the education system needs work. One of the major problems is that curriculums are restrictive and outdated. They are geared towards the bare minimum and leave little room for good teachers to flourish. This leads to frustration which dulls their passion (along with crappy parents that blame teachers for their crappy parenting).

However, I see a lot of positive change in the education system where I'm from. Educators and curriculum developers are trying to be more progressive but it is meet with resistance. This resistance comes from a confusion that progressive education is "airy" and "full of fluff". People fear that the new approaches will lead to a "hippy-dippy", more entitled society (this is pretty much the same thing that the political right says about any attempt at improving social programs...).

Certainly there are extremely "open" forms of education that are just as detrimental as extremely regimented forms of education, however I don't see what is being purposed as the former. What I see is a renewed attempt to foster creativity, imagination and critical thought at the younger ages, which leads into more open-minded, eager, analytical high-schoolers (where their education is still very much so a "pencil-to-paper" style of learning).

I understand that I can come across as being rather naively idealistic at times (and I suppose I am to some extent). However, sometimes I find we, as a society, resist change purely on the, rather dogmatic, grounds that it's non-traditional.

 

[dwallace1971]

The cynic in me would say that the "A"rts folks see attention, money and resources directed toward the "STEM" folks and want to shove in their "A" in an attempt to get some of the attention, money and resources.

"On the human scale, the laws of Newtonian Physics are non-negotiable"

 

[nornrich]

One of the best shows I've ever seen on television was a show called "Connections" with host James Burke. He would take you from the origins of a technology, like the smelting of metal, all the way through how the various connections brought about the modern jet airplane. It was very good snapshot of the history of engineering, technology and the arts. I also had the privilege of hearing him lecture and the topic was on where the modern practice of science and engineering had gone astray.

His premise was that in the late Renaissance, when the sciences started to become more specialized and to start separating from the arts was when things started to go adrift. He makes a good case in the example of Leonardo Da Vinci. It was the Renaissance and the transition from spiritualism/emotionalism to a more empirical view of the universe that scientific progress really started to accelerate. This however wouldn’t have been possible without the foundations that were built by many generations of artisans who practiced their trades and passed down knowledge of their craft, that was built on empirical learning’s from previous generations.

I think the arts bring a sense of the romantic and passionate that is lacking in the modern practice of science and engineering. The creativity needed to solve the big hairy problems that are facing us as humans, won’t be found in formulas and equations. They will be found by those labeled as Renaissance Men (or Women). Those that have a firm understanding of the physical sciences, but can step back and appreciate the emotional/spiritual/cultural impact of the knowledge and technology that they are seeking.


Rich.....

Richard Nornhold, PE

http://www.personna.com

 

[CheckerHater]

Still déjà vu all over the place

 

[SnTMan]

nornrich, that was a great show. I've got them all, I believe, on VHS at home somewhere. If anybody remembers those.

Regards,

Mike

 

[SomptingGuy]

Connections?

I watched it with complete awe when it was first shown on BBC TV (I was only 11 at the time). James Burke followed it up with a number of other programs aimed at explaining the world of science, engineering, the human mind, perception and others. A great presenter, who is still with us.

- Steve

 

[JohnRBaker]

I agree with respect to James Burke and his BBC programs. The other really good program was titled 'The Day the Universe Changed', the premise being that man was perfectly happy with the way he preceived the world about him to be until he learns something which changes what until then were beliefs which were held as absolute truths. One of the examples sited was a supposed conversation between a pair of Renaissance philosophers when one of them asked how was it that their ancestors were foolish enough to actually beleive that the Sun rotated about the Earth. The second philosopher then asked the first, exactly what would a person see if indeed the Sun DID rotate about the Earth that would be any different than the known situation whereas the Earth is orbiting the Sun? The answer of course is that it would look exactly the same. It was ONLY after astronomers and physicists had demonstrated that it was the Earth which rotated about Sun did the average person accept this, but the reality is that at that moment, for all of mankind, the Universe had indeed changed forever.

Note that they issued a companion book for this BBC series, which I've got a copy of. While I don't know sure I suspect that they may have issued one for the 'Connections' series as well.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.