EngineerGOOD: Engineering Solutions and Developing Global Competence

 

At ProjectEngin, we view the inclusion of Engineering Design practices and thinking in STEM classes as being a critical component in the development of creative and collaborative problem solving skills. But very few problems occur in isolation and even fewer solutions are free of negative impacts. The students who are in our classrooms today are facing a highly networked world full of both amazing potential and enormous challenges.

Globally competentThey will need to work together to develop new ideas, products, and ways of doing things. And just as importantly, they will need to understand the people and places that are impacted by both the problems and the solutions. STEM skills are important, but global view and systems thinking are critical if solutions and innovations are to be effective and sustainable. The goal of education has always been to help young people lead meaningful lives. However, it has become increasingly clear that education itself needs to be redefined to include the development of skills, not just the delivery of information. Veronica Mansilla of Harvard’s ProjectZero and the Asia Society’s Anthony Jackson cite the ability to identify and explain issues of global significance, along with the ability to generate solutions, as being critical to education in this interconnected world. Global Competence

 

EngineerGOOD curricular projects feature all three key components of a 21st century education at the center: creative problem-solving, global competency, and systems thinking. They embrace a model of project-based learning that tackles authentic global challenges based on the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals.sdg Students follow the Engineering Design Process to generate solutions and prototypes designed for a specific location. Allowing students to choose specific end-users in the context of a larger, global issue encourages an understanding of culture and increased engagement. Instead of learning about problems, students focus on solutions. By including a focus on suitable, small-scale technology, students are able to consider their solution as part of a larger system and to consider both positive and negative effects.

Young people cannot envision or design a desalination plant to supply water to an entire country, but they can develop simple filtration devices for a small village in Kenya or Bangladesh. They may not be able to plan and connect a large scale solar array to the grid, but they can combine small (pico) PV panels with rechargeable batteries and LEDs to create a light to do homework by anywhere in the world. We believe that today’s students can engineer a better future, one place, one project at a time. But to fully realize their potential, we need to re-engineer the learning experiences that they have today.

Contact ProjectEngin to learn more.

 

 

 

EngineerGood_logo1_tm_rgb

 

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Three Terrible T’s

What are the three practices you need to avoid if you hope to create lifelong learners? At ProjectEngin, we call them the three T’s.

                                                Teaching

                                                Talking

                                                Testing

 

Yes, we started our list with teaching!

We often equate teaching to with learning, talking at with discussing, and testing with assessing understanding. But maybe it is time to move away from doing things to or at students and to start doing things with them.

We are trained as “teachers” but what if we joined our students as learners? Clearly, it is time to change the practice from “teaching to” to “learning with”.  What a great way to model lifelong learning! It would be so much easier to focus on critical thinking and collaboration as vital parts of education.

What if we stopped “talking at” or “to”, and began to “talk with”? Think how much more we would model communication, problem-solving, and empathy.

What if instead of using tests to assess knowledge, we focused on challenges and tasks in order to assess understanding? The application of ideas requires a deeper understanding and an awareness of connections as well as systems impacts. Applying knowledge leads one step closer to mastery and requires innovative and creative thought.

We work within the confines of an education system that has roots in the 1800s.overwhelmed student It was a time when content was king and the classroom was a way to disseminate facts. Two hundred years later, content is at our fingertips and teaching needs to go far beyond both the transmission of information and a simple check to see if it has been received. Students need to learn how to make use of content and work with and expand ideas. Every classroom needs to include active ways to build the skills needed to access, apply, and extend information. And you need a way to assess those skills along with content.

So, as you re-think your approach for the new school year that begins next month, think about replacing the 3 T’s with the 4 C’s, Super Skills for the 21st Century .  Develop a classroom culture that values critical thinking, creativity, collaboration and communication by learning with and talking with your students. Look for real understanding and assess it through the application, extension, and innovation of ideas.

It is time to stop telling your students “how to” swim and to let them jump into the water!

swimmers on side of pool                   swimmer in pool

If you need help diving in, contact us to learn how you can banish the Terrible T’s and have a terrific year!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Engineering Your STEM Classes: 3 Key Ideas for Success

Henry Ford QuoteOur work at ProjectEngin has allowed us to support a wide range of educators in a variety of schools and classrooms as they work to include more E in STEM. All have the goal of creating more skills-based, active learning experiences for their students. And most of them report encountering the same obstacles. As a vision-based enterprise, we always try to keep our eye on the goal of more meaningful education. We believe educators who are working to include more Engineering should keep the following three ideas in mind.

  1. Work to support imagination, teach creativity, and focus on process.

We like to think of imagination as free-range thinking that just happens. Young children excel at it, but very few aspects of formal education embrace it. Allow time to, as Albert Einstein put it, “…develop the childlike inclination for play”.  We often use Quick Build activities to engage imaginations. This are hands-on short building challenges involving unlikely materials.

Creativity is the skill of harnessing your imagination and making the connections needed to create reality out of your imaginative ideas. This is where brainstorming, brainwriting, divergent thinking, and other activities need to be actively taught, particularly in middle and high school classes where the quest for the “one right answer” begins to dominate. The book “Thinkertoys” by Michael Michalko is a great resource for creativity exercises.

Innovation and engineering are processes. This is probably the most common of all of our mantras at ProjectEngin. Following a process that starts with knowing your end user and investigating all of your options is the key to good design. diverge convergeThe Engineering Design Process is often a balance between divergent and convergent thinking as you move from the consideration of all possible solutions to the building and testing of a protoype that best fits a given design space.  All of the skills that are the key to 21st century learning are embedded in the process of innovation and design. Our next post will highlight key steps in the process.

  1. Allow for student choice and voice.

No Engineering Design project should be scripted to result in identical solutions from all student groups. Ever! Present an overall design challenge but allow students to identify the end-user. By mapping out the constraints and criteria relevant to their target audience, students will create unique solutions to common challenges. In our EngineerGOOD curricular modules, the challenges are based on global issues, but students choose specific places for which to develop solutions. Global view and cultural empathy follow as a natural consequence. Even a simple, generic bridge-building challenge can allow for student choice by allowing for variations in prototyping materials and the identification of a real or hypothetical location and purpose. Requiring clear connections between design and the target user reinforces the idea of following a process while enabling the creation of unique solutions.

 

  1. Plan time for modifications. The first attempt should never be the final result.

Many beginning “Engineering” teachers skip this step because of time pressures and the need to “cover” new material. Don’t fall into this trap! The modification phase is often where the real “aha” moments happen for students. Allow only 2 or 3 changes, one at a time. Require a justification for each and you will see students begin to make clear connections between cause and effect. If it is too difficult to modify prototypes because of construction issues or serious time constraints, request a reflection on planned modifications or next steps for implementation. Make it clear that the first model is just a beginning and embrace the facts that mistakes and failures provide a platform for genuine improvement.

Light Bulb

Most of all, model all of the above in your own practice! Engineer your activities by imagining how much fun school could be, think beyond the box, frame it all in a reproducible process, and always allow yourself time for reflection and modification once the activity is completed. Keep these three ideas in mind and avoid common obstacles as you focus on the goal of a better learning experience for all of your students!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

To Code or Not to Code – Why neither is the answer to getting more girls interested in STEM fields

Countless research studies and initiatives have focused on our inability to attract female students to STEM fields. The percentages for women in Engineering has only budged by a few percentage points in the past few decades since I graduated with an Engineering degree. This summary from the National Girls Collaborative does a great job of laying out all of the statistics from K-12 through college and into the workforce. Their estimate of women making up 15% of the Engineering workforce is actually generous compared to some others that range from 11-15%.

When you consider that the challenges of the future will require highly innovative solutions, this lack of diversity is alarming. All innovation experts point out that diversity is a key factor in enhancing creativity. Katherine Phillips states that “… if you want to build teams or organizations capable of innovating, you need diversity. Diversity enhances creativity. It encourages the search for novel information and perspectives, leading to better decision making and problem solving. Diversity can improve the bottom line of companies and lead to unfettered discoveries and breakthrough innovations.” (Scientific American)

Everyone is aware of the issue, but it often seems that few have followed any real process in defining the problem. We simply “try” solutions.  Clearly we cannot afford to give up the creative potential of half the world’s population. The real question is what makes girls lose interest in STEM or even fail to ever become interested in it. The codechallenge lies in increasing and maintaining that engagement. But is the best solution we have to teach coding? Is that the real technological challenge that we face moving forward? And are we being fair in putting resources into coding as the way to attract more girls to STEM?

Coding is definitely a powerful tool, but it is a tool. You use it to program and develop apps, but it does not identify what apps you need and what technology must be developed to better meet human needs. You don’t need coding for that higher level approach. You need vision, creativity, critical thinking, the ability to communicate and collaborate, and strong problem solving skills. You need to be able to engineer and you need to use many of the skills that young children have naturally. You need to make connections, think laterally, and consider systems impacts. Sequential, step-by-step thinking will not help students to envision the big picture that the world presents. Teaching coding and expecting technological innovation is like teaching spelling and expecting a Pulitzer Prize winning novel.

And yet, many schools, districts, and states seem to think coding, particularly for girls, is the answer to preparing students for the future. It becomes their “STEM initiative”.  In reality, it prepares the factory workers of the future. Henry Ford said that, “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” Coding creates faster programmers, but it does little to create those who can imagine the technologies that will improve our lives. It does not take us to the next level or allow us to envision new ideas.

One of the more valid answers to the question of young women leaving STEM fields is that it does not engage them. The effort that it takes to move ahead as a minority in the field is not worth the final reward. And if that reward is more apps, it probably isn’t. But look at the progress women have made in fields like medicine and law. These are careers that allow them to interact with and help others. They are areas where problem solving is the norm and an understanding of the patient or client is critical. We need to convince girls and young women that engineers can help people and make the world a better worldplace. Confining our solution to the diversity issue in STEM to practices like coding limits the creativity and talent present in every young child to a world of steps and sequences. It will do little to bring more girls and creative thinkers into a world that is increasingly dependent on innovation. The solution we should all be prototyping should showcase the relevance of math and science in the engineering of a better future. If we embrace the true interconnectedness of STEM and stop supporting silos of learning or mastery of specific routine skills, the real innovators will show up in all of our classrooms.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Engineering the Three Dimensions of STEM Professional Development

At ProjectEngin, we focus on supporting the inclusion of Engineering Design in K-12 education. Much of our initial exposure to teachers, schools, and districts is through requests for workshops. Many such requests involve the magic acronym “STEM”. As a result, our first challenge in structuring impactful workshops is to identify what a school or teacher really means by STEM.  Sometimes it is an adjective – “we want to be a STEM school”, “we have one STEM teacher”, “we do STEM projects”. Sometimes it is a noun, often referring to a phantom new subject or discipline, an additional class period, or a topic viewed as interchangeable with robotics, coding, or 3-D printing. “We do STEM for 20 minutes each week”, “we have STEM in science class”, “we are starting STEM with robotics” are phrases we have heard in various settings.

Most experts agree that STEM should not be treated as the “new science” or, in fact, as an academic discipline at all. It is a way of thinking, collaborating, innovating, and problem-solving that models real-world situations. The Department of Education STEM 2026 report does a good job making this distinction. Further discussion of the need for connections among the component STEM disciplines can be found in STEM Integration in K-12 Education, a report published by the National Academies Press.

STEM2026

As providers of professional development and curriculum design services, STEM means the following to the educators at ProjectEngin:

  • A learning culture that embraces active problem-solving, not passive transfer of facts
  • Collaboration across different disciplines versus isolation in academic silos
  • An opportunity to fail and then move forward versus a “one strike and you’re out” assessment mentality
  • An ability to present, challenge, and defend ideas versus “death by PowerPoint”
  • And, most importantly, a focus on process not product

In our professional experience as teachers and engineers, that sounds a lot like Engineering Design and it forms the practices that we follow in our work with teachers and students. We truly believe that the “E” is the key to connections, collaboration, creativity, a problem-solving mentality, and a true STEM learning environment.

In order to maximize the impact of any professional development opportunity we first 3d PDneed to address where a school is on the spectrum of STEM self-definition and actual implementation. We have been most successful when taking a 3 dimensional view focused on a concept of three concentric layers.

We always works from the outside in, starting with the overall school culture. Depending on where a school is on the “STEM Spectrum”, we work with all teachers and administrators to define a STEM vision, designed to support a unified, collaborative approach. We actually take attendees through a modified version of the Engineering Design Process to help them craft a vision that acknowledges the constraints they have, defines criteria for success, and creates a model for an initiative that is sustainable and realistic. STEM should never be about one teacher, one classroom, one project. If that approach is used, it becomes another “layered-on” experience not an intrinsic part of a commitment to truly educating young people.

A large part of our work focuses on the second layer. STEM does not live in places where desks are in rows, where students sit passively while teachers transmit information, where failure is not an option, or where creativity and collaboration are not valued. The work required to transform the learning space, figuratively and literally, most often falls to the classroom teacher. New curriculum, technology, and resources are doomed to be under-utilized and ineffective if new classroom norms, practices, environments, expectations, and pedagogies are not in place or, at least, developing. That requires that a teacher has a chance to learn through modeling and reflection. We help them transition and evolve by leveraging what they are comfortable with and engaging them in new ways of supporting learning. Most true STEM projects, particularly Engineering Design projects, are active, group-based, and multi-disciplinary. Implementing something on that level requires both teaching topics that are new and teaching them very differently. Failure to acknowledge both most often leads to an unsustainable approach. It is simply too much at once. Our workshops at this level model the classroom environment and practices that will support a STEM approach. Teachers leave equipped with a range of activities and resources that are designed to be easily implemented and that we have constructed to engage students while providing hands-on experience of related scientific concepts.

We always suggest that schools determine that these first two levels are present or developing before tackling the inclusion of more extensive design projects, or actually adopting a more “STEM” curriculum. In our experience, curriculum that is inserted without creating a supportive environment in and out of the individual classroom rarely lasts and it often fails to create a better learning opportunity. Our most intensive work involves collaborating with teachers who have tried some shorter Engineering Design activities in their classroom and are now eager to implement more comprehensive, longer-term Engineering Design projects. That is the innermost dimension of the three layers.  Again, we try to honor the fact that teachers are teaching new material in a new way. We work with them to develop projects that they are comfortable with or help them to adapt our projects to their classes and expertise. We know that it is key to have some level of success with the implementation of that first Engineering Design project. No one expects everything to go perfectly, but we always hope for, and usually achieve, a level of student engagement and enough evidence of better learning to support teacher enthusiasm and confidence.

Although we customize our approach by looking at the three dimensions of the STEM spectrum, we always have two key goals in mind. We always hope to create a better learning experience for students and to develop educators who are advocates and experts in their own professional communities. Both are part of our vision for engineering sustainable STEM programs.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Maximizing the M in STEM

In many schools and classrooms, STEM is simply the new science. In many of our workshops and site visits, we deal with science teachers who seem to have become responsible for the STEM initiatives in their schools. At ProjectEngin, we remain committed to the idea that the E is the key to connecting many subjects. But we always try to include as many disciplines as possible in our curriculum materials. Here are a few ideas for developing some Engineering projects that lead from the other end of the acronym. They start with math and connect to science through Engineering Design projects and activities.

  1. Packaging Design – volume, geometry, 2D to 3D spatial awareness, artistic design, costing, environmental impacts, forces

Packaging is all around us and, in many cases, it has an enormous environmental and economic impact. We have projects for grades 4-12, ranging from 3 -10 classes in length. Most of them challenge students to design more environmentally friendly and cost efficient packaging.  In addition, they provide a platform to work on the spatial reasoning skills that have been found to be so critical in supporting success in math. Here are a few resources to get you started thinking about an M-based Engineering project.packagings

Impacts of some types of packaging

Plastic Packaging- from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation

 

  1. Assembly Lines and Rate Studiesrates, planning, optimization, human factors, product design

We use assembly line projects for a variety of reasons, ranging from the study of rates in math classes to developing an understanding of protein synthesis in biology. Setting up a mini-assembly line requires thinking about production rates of various operations and consideration of possible bottlenecks. It also involves a lot of collaboration and communication.  Finding the optimum production plan with limited resources provides options for a range of graphing and data analysis activities. We also use this project for more social studies-oriented activities related to the Industrial Revolution and current issues involving manufacturing conditions throughout the world. We like to start our projects out with a fun video, like this classic: Lucy in the Chocolate Factory !

lucy

 

  1.    The Power of Graphs – data analysis, visualization, artistic design, wide range of        science and social studies issues

Numbers and images are universal ways of communicating.  This is a skill that has become increasingly relevant in the age of Big Data. Our projects focus on the idea of using the Engineering Design Process to create a mathematically-based platform for creating awareness of a topic or issue.

bubble_chart_of_crime_versus_poverty_in_50_states

Asking students to engineer an infographic or a bubble chart, reflective of the work of Hans Rosling, provides the basis for a great STEAM challenge. By selecting a topic related to science, such as health or climate issues, you can truly connect all of the letters in the acronym.

Embracing a STEM culture in your school offers amazing potential. But if you hope to realize its true value in creating a new learning experience, it needs to be more than the “new science”. You can start by maximizing the M. And remember, as we like to say, “E is the key” to content-rich, skills-based learning!

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What Does it Really Mean to be a STEM School?

At ProjectEngin, we deal with schools, teachers, and classrooms in various stages of defining themselves as “STEM” or sometimes “STEAM”. It can range from one teacher “doing STEM” for 20-30 minutes per week to an entire school claiming to be “certified in STEM”.  Somehow the acronym has created a noun that stands for yet another trend in education. In many schools, making popsicle stick bridges and gum-drop DNA is called STEM.  Others seem to feel that having a computer science or robotics course is the epitome of STEM. In reality, without connections, these things are simply tools, not unlike basic spelling and arithmetic. While many of these activities have value, they do not define a new vision for education.

So just what does it really mean to be a STEM school? Many of our workshops are designed to tackle that topic. We urge educators to begin with a vision and to value the process more than the product, just as we do when designing curriculum. In a sense, we help them to engineer what STEM means for their learning community.  Our work has convinced us that unless it begins with knowing who you teach, how they learn, and the real connections that matter to them, the label “STEM” is just that – a label for another trend.

In many of our workshops, we practice what we preach by urging educators to follow the Engineering Design Process to develop a new culture in their schools and classrooms. It begins with clearly understanding the challenge before you and by identifying the constraints you face and the goals or criteria that matter to you as a learning community. All schools face real limitations in terms of resources, time, and talent. Failing to acknowledge those constraints will result in failure to launch meaningful change. Our advice is to start with what you have and evolve, growing organically in order to value every resource and talent that is already in place. The next step is really the secret sauce to a strong “STEM” vision – determining the criteria that are important to your community. This is where a school creates a STEM identity and vision and this is what creates the value proposition that helps them to realize a unique educational experience. Finally, just as in Engineering, once a challenge is fully defined and delimited, you can begin to generate solutions, prototype, test, reflect, and modify to create a lasting product. This is an ongoing, evolutionary process that should be guided by your constraints, criteria, and vision.

When establishing the criteria that are important to you, resist the tendency to view STEM as a new label that defines something that your school does. Educating young people for the future needs to be defined by “how” not “what”; by skills not by content. Your STEM vision should be about more than uniting 3 or 4 disciplines. It should define the culture of learning at your school. And it needs to be Sustainable, Transdisciplinary, Experiential, and Meaningful if you hope to create lasting and impactful change. Saying that you are going to connect projects to Science and Math, defining Engineering as making things, and seeing Technology as coding and robotics does no more than create yet another discipline, often housed in the confines of the Science department.

Sustainable STEM means that you are going to avoid the trends in order to support a new way of doing things versus just embracing new things. Adding courses and units in coding, computer science, and robotics has value for some students and for certain time frames but they are just new courses and topics. A sustainable STEM vision is based on the value of process over product, skills over specific content. Those of us who were students in the second half of the 20th century can remember spending hours learning how to key punch cards in Fortran IV or program in Basic. Replacing that with the programming skills of the 21st century will not create a sustainable STEM culture in your school.

Transdisciplinary STEM literally and figuratively breaks down the walls, not just encouraging thinking outside of the box, but getting rid of the box. Schools become increasingly siloed places as students move through grade levels. STEM should never be one more of those silos. And it should never be limited to a few disciplines. No big challenge or “wicked” problem is ever solved by examining one aspect or employing one point of view; students need to be taught to think in terms of systems and big, connected pictures. And that needs to be modeled by teachers who are willing to cross classrooms, walls, and halls.

Experiential STEM needs to focus on learning by doing and on the idea that time for reflection, revision, and communication is critical to the process. In our work, we embrace the Engineering Design Process as a framework for meeting challenges by applying and discovering knowledge to craft solutions. We would never expect baseball players to learn how to hit by just reading a book, yet we seem to think that is how formal education should work.  And we don’t necessarily learn well just by doing; we learn when we reflect on what we have done and the effects we have seen due to our actions. Time for analyzing failures, reflecting on impacts, and modifying actions is how we use mistakes to “fail forward”. True experiential learning makes connections backwards and forwards, by applying what has been taught and optimizing understanding through reflecting on the process.

Meaningful STEM should always answer the question “What do I need to learn this? What am I ever going to do with this?” The world is full of challenges, large and small, that will increasingly demand solutions and innovation. Facts are often not valuable in isolation, but they can create countless impacts when applied. We live primarily in a world that we have created in a little over 100 years. Information multiplies at a rate that no one can keep up with, but we insist on transmitting many of the same facts taught in schools decades ago. Learning what to do with that knowledge is the only way to move forward. Innovation rests on engagement and imagination. Replace the popsicle bridge with infrastructure challenges. Connect coding and gum drop DNA to each other and to the amazing lessons we can learn about assembly operations by observing nature. What students do for 6 to 8 hours every day must be meaningful!

Henry Mintzberg, a world-renown business management and strategy expert has been quoted as saying “When the world is predictable you need smart people. When the world is unpredictable you need adaptable people.” The future of the world is in our classrooms today – we owe them a framework for learning and a way of problem-solving, not another label.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment