We live in complex times that bring with them several complex problems. Some of these problems are overarching engineering challenges -- battling global climate change, advancing healthcare systems, and improving urban infrastructure are just a few. These challenges are extremely grand in nature due to the environmental, social, economic, and societal interdependencies that surround them. Many of them have been identified and codified only in the past decade. There is no single solution that will address these challenges. The one thing that is clear, though, is that all these challenges require engineers to depart from the comfort zone of their traditional thinking processes, and dive into the pursuit of the unknown.
President Obama, during his 2011 State of the Union echoed this need by stating: “None of us can predict with certainty what the next big industry will be, or where the new jobs will come from. Thirty years ago, we couldn’t know that something called the Internet would lead to an economic revolution. What we can do – what America does better than anyone – is spark the creativity and imagination of our people. We are the nation that put cars in driveways and computers in offices; the nation of Edison and the Wright brothers; of Google and Facebook. In America, innovation doesn’t just change our lives. It’s how we make a living.”
Regardless of our political affiliations and ideologies, it is only fair to claim that the President is right. Innovation must be fostered. Innovators are highly creative people with a gritty personality that allows them to thrive in an uncertain and skeptical environment. Innovation, while initiated due to curiosity, and guided by necessities and bottom-lines, is an organic process. One cannot force innovation. One cannot control innovation. Innovation has and will continue to endure every test of time.
Regardless of our political affiliations and ideologies, it is only fair to claim that the President is right. Innovation must be fostered. Innovators are highly creative people with a gritty personality that allows them to thrive in an uncertain and skeptical environment. Innovation, while initiated due to curiosity, and guided by necessities and bottom-lines, is an organic process. One cannot force innovation. One cannot control innovation. Innovation has and will continue to endure every test of time.
Then why is it that we expect to create a whole generation of innovative, problem solving millennials by using the controlled teaching methodologies of the early 1970s and 1980s? Many of these step-by-step teaching and learning methodologies were created when we were still battling small pox, when an iPad was only seen in Star Trek, and when these instant-gratification-seeking millennials weren't even born.
These are modern engineers in the making; they communicate via 140 character tweets, SMS, and Facebook. They like to experience things and get their feet wet, be it a laboratory experiment or a software project. They don't like waiting, and why should they wait? After all, they were thrust into the era of instant knowledge creation, curation, and sharing -- the era of holding an iPhone in their hand that allows them to "Google" about Einstein and "tweet" the search results. And who is responsible for this era? Us.
How is it that we expect our engineering students to address climate change and take an active role in eradicating -- not battling -- but eradicating once and for all, diseases like Cancer and HIV if the only thing we subject them to is sections of a textbook, mundane weekly homework assignments, and final exams?
These are modern engineers in the making; they communicate via 140 character tweets, SMS, and Facebook. They like to experience things and get their feet wet, be it a laboratory experiment or a software project. They don't like waiting, and why should they wait? After all, they were thrust into the era of instant knowledge creation, curation, and sharing -- the era of holding an iPhone in their hand that allows them to "Google" about Einstein and "tweet" the search results. And who is responsible for this era? Us.
How is it that we expect our engineering students to address climate change and take an active role in eradicating -- not battling -- but eradicating once and for all, diseases like Cancer and HIV if the only thing we subject them to is sections of a textbook, mundane weekly homework assignments, and final exams?
When an 18-year-old student walks into his or her first lecture in an engineering school, why is it that we talk about textbooks, grade distributions and the schedule of exams? Why can't we gently make them aware of their role as the future problem solvers? After all, aren't these first-year engineering students the ones in whom we are placing our trust to come up with new technologies that will better our lives? The path to any meaningful scientific discovery or invention passes through valleys of setbacks, historically and statistically speaking. Why is it that our grading rubrics do not account for this necessity?
Aren't these engineering students a substantial chunk of our future investment portfolio? To increase the probability of a strong return on our investments, we must create a pedagogical ecosystem that provides conditions conducive to the genesis and sustainable perpetuation of these future innovators and creative problem solvers. We bear the responsibility of facilitating the growth and development of these modern engineers. Unless we use our pedagogical infrastructure to instill in them the sense that they matter and must step up to these challenges, we may miss out on the next Da Vinci, Einstein, or Steve Jobs. As an engineer and an educator, I often find myself asking: Why not rethink engineering education? Why not re-envision and humanize it? Why not step away from the cookie-cutter paradigm, and allow for individuality and creativity to flourish?
Why not engineer engineering education?
Why not engineer engineering education?
RSS Feed