« Better Beginnings: how to start a presentation, book, article... | Main | Two simple words of passion... »

Why does engineering/math/science education in the US suck?

Whatweteachflat
If you studied math, science, or engineering at a four-year college in the US, much of what you learned is useless, forgotten, or obsolete. All that money, all that time, all that wasted talent. If all we lost were a few years, no big deal. But the really scary part is that we never learned what matters most to true experts in math, science, and engineering. We never really learned how to DO math, science, and engineering.

Toward the end of his life, legendary mathematician Jacques Hadamard asked 100 of the top scientists of his time how they did whatever it was that they did (math, physics, etc.) Hadamard's survey found a massive disconnect between how we teach math and science and how mathematicians and scientists actually work. The majority of his contemporaries apparently claimed that using the logical, left-brain symbols associated with their work was NOT how they did their work. These were simply the tools they used to communicate it. What they used to do the works was much... fuzzier. Intuition. Visualization. Sensation (Einstein talked of a kinesthetic element). Anthropomorphizing. Metaphors.

We are in sooooo much trouble.

What experts use to do their work are the things we don't teach. We focus almost exclusively on how to talk about the work. Obviously this doesn't mean nobody learns to do it... we have plenty of expert engineers, scientists, and mathematicians, who become great either in spite of faulty teaching or because they lucked out and had excellent, clueful instructors and mentors. But we also hear more and more teachers, experts, and employers railing against the sorry state of our advanced technical educations today. The problem is, many of these same teachers, experts, and employers have a tough time articulating what's wrong, let alone how to fix it.

And what do we do to try and improve things? We just do MORE of what's wrong. We redouble our efforts. We drill and test students even harder in facts and rote memorization. We work and test them even harder on using the tools for communication (e.g. code) rather than the tools for thought (e.g. intuition, visualization, etc.)

Our educational institutions--at every level--need drastic changes or we're all screwed. The generation of students we're turning out today need skills nobody really cared about 50, 40, even 20 years ago. Where we used to prepare students for a "job for life", now we must prepare students to be jobless. We must prepare them to think fast, learn faster, and unlearn even faster ("yes, that drug was the appropriate way to treat the XYZ disease, but that was so last week. THIS week we now realize it'll kill you.")

The Waterfall Model of education is failing like never before. We need Agile Learning.

Three of the many people who've been leading the charge on this are Roger Schank, Dan Pink (his "Whole New Mind" book is a must-read), and computing/learning guru Alan Kay. One of my favorite Alan Kay notions is something like this, "If you want to be a better programmer, take up the violin." He claims that the more time he spends playing music, the fresher and better his approaches to engineering become. He's an outspoken critic of engineering students focusing too early in their education, because he believes that with a more liberal arts education, you get metaphors and ways of thinking and seeing that are vital to your later engineering work.

I'll end this with two quotes:

From Jason Fried:
"Hire curious people. Even if they don't have the exact skill set you want, curious, passionate people can learn anything."

And from Jacques Hadamard:
" Logic merely sanctions the conquests of the intuition."

If intuition is the heart of what true experts do, then shouldn't we be trying to teach that? Or at the least, stop stifling and dissing it? And yes, I do believe that we can teach and inspire all those fuzzy things including intuition and even curiosity. But we are running out of time.

[UPDATE: Martin Polley brought up the TED talk by Sir Ken Robinson, and if you haven't seen it already--I urge you to check it out ASAP!

Mark Fowler was surprised that I didn't bring up the book What the Best College Teachers Do, and I can't believe I left it out of the post. I believe it is the single best book on helping someone learn. When we had our most recent author's bootcamp, it was the one book we gave to all attendees. Thanks Mark.

I highly recommend the comments to this post -- they're insightful on all sides, agreement and disagreement and all points in between. And before you tell me I'm advocating for throwing out fundamentals, memorization, facts, logic, etc... PLEASE look again at my venn diagram ; ) This is about brain balance, and addressing much more of the brain than just the narrow channels that are the parts of the brain that actually "talk." ]

Posted by Kathy on November 2, 2006 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/220252/6675374

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why does engineering/math/science education in the US suck?:

» Engineering/math/science education what should we do? from Playing with Technology
Kathy Sierra at Creating Passionate Users has a nice post on what she thinks is wrong with engineering/math/science education in the US. I tend to agree with many of the things she says. In a lot of places we dont help students learn the skills ... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 2, 2006 6:20:05 PM

» Why does engineering/math/science education in the US suck? from Gubatron
Hi Passionate Team!!!,Our RSS engine has fetched and linked this post to our homepage (http://www.wedoit4you.com), if the post gets enough attention this week, we'll talk about it on our next podcast (http... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 2, 2006 7:31:09 PM

» Agile Learning from ninthspace
Has Kathy Sierra been reading my Agile World post from last month? Her latest Creating Passionate Users writing examines the differences between what the U.S.educational needs are and what students get taught. Her conclusion is that the U.S. needs Agi... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 3, 2006 2:27:45 AM

» More On Why We Homeskool… and Why Your Career Is Stalled… from Notes from the Toolshed: Developing Aptitudes for Dynamic Professional Growth
Once again, Kathy Sierra hits the nail between the eyes. I'll go even further and express that in general, school teaches our kids to be mindless drones.... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 3, 2006 4:24:46 AM

» The Best Qualification I Have from satorimedia
I work in a field where the standards change constantly. Equipment, file formats, even styles of direction (Ken Burns changed everything) all are in a state of flux. So while I do have on my resume the skillsets and even [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 3, 2006 7:27:02 AM

» Preparing Workers from The Bamboo Project Blog
Kathy has an interesting post on why the U.S. is falling behind in preparing math and science workers for the future. Her point is that the educational system we've set up doesn't teach people the skills that they actually use [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 3, 2006 8:04:40 AM

» Knowledge, Competencies and Attitudes from Innovation Zen
If you want to have success you should should try to absorb as much knowledge as possible right? Well, not quite. At least not only! I believe success, whether we talk at professional or personal level, derives from three factors: knowledge, competenci... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 3, 2006 8:54:34 AM

» Disconnect: What we teach, what they need from elearnspace
Disconnect between what we teach, what they actually need: "Our educational institutions--at every level--need drastic changes or we're all screwed. The generation of students we're turning out today need skills nobody really cared about 50, 40, even 2... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 3, 2006 9:09:16 AM

» Weekly Linkage [11-03-06] from Experience Planner
Quick Hits Amazon Rolls Out its Visionary Web Strategy [Read/Write Web] Web 3.0 and the Widgetized Web [Micro Persuasion] Michael Porter Asks, and Answers: Why Do Good Managers Set Bad Strategies? [Knowledge@Wharton] Why Does Engineering/Math/Science ... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 3, 2006 9:58:00 AM

» Technical Education from eleven3 Blog
I went to Oregon State University and spent my first year and a half deciding what I wanted to do. If the education system was up to par with all of the latest and greatest, I would have pursued a... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 3, 2006 1:25:20 PM

» Pathetic state of science and engineering education in the US... from Thought Slop
One of my favorite bloggers, Kathy Siera, discusses the shortcomings of science and engineering education in this country. She's spot on. As far as I can tell, education in these areas mostly consists of memorizing the mechanics of solving problems...mu [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 3, 2006 7:40:36 PM

» Kathy Sierra nails it from oook blog
and not just for Engineering/Math/Science Education: I got to this (as I often get to stuff...) via Stephen Downes. The original Typepad posting is really worth a look for more detail.... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 4, 2006 8:28:23 AM

» Engineering and Math Education in US from DataWebTect
Kathy Sierra talks about the state of Engineering and Math education in US. It is soooo true and not only in US but in other countries such as India. As an engineer from one of the reputed colleges in India, I feel the same about at least the Engineeri... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 4, 2006 9:52:20 AM

» Webology or Information Science? from The Real Paul Jones
Sayan writes: I came across this article on BBC where TBL says “When you look at university courses, web science isn’t there - it seems to fall through the cracks ” The latter half of the article is entirely devoted to this idea. I think this ... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 5, 2006 1:25:41 PM

» Our education system: the zombie, the academician and the hacker from CIO Mind
There are three types of computer science students: the zombie, the academician and the hacker. The zombie He feels early the need for more real life action and go out in the wild for a job. Usually they get a job as junior programmers and starts spiti... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 5, 2006 2:39:09 PM

» HERE'S AN EXCELLENT POST ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOW WE COMMUNICATE WHAT WE DO, VERSUS HOW WE ACTUALLY DO IT. from HERESY
Creating Passionate Users: Why does engineering/math/science education in the US suck?... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 5, 2006 8:07:59 PM

» Does engineering/math/science education in suck? from untyping
Kathy Sierra asks why does engineering/math/science education in the US suck? Nice of her to limit that to the US. I guess we're ok here in the UK. Education sucks is a meme that has a lot of mileage. We've... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 6, 2006 1:21:01 AM

» The knowledge from Preoccupations
From time to time, there's a flurry of memorable postings or remarks about knowledge, education and contemporary culture … David Wilcox picked up on something George Siemens wrote: Content is no longer the value point of education (it never really [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 7, 2006 9:51:53 AM

» Weekly Roundup (11 November 2006) - Personalising Learning from teaching.mrbelshaw.co.uk
My thinkings centering around the term personalising learning at the moment as Ive a School Priorities Group meeting to attend next week, followed by a meeting with the Head to look at ways in which the curriculum at my scho... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 12, 2006 12:17:30 PM

» Violin Music from Violin Music
This is one of Lusine Aghababyan, 2nd Violin , Cello and Piano for a performance in Santa Cruz March 23, 2007! added on Saturday, 09th of September 2006. Slow Six is Christopher Tignor and 4 other musicians on violin , because they immediately recog [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 12, 2006 5:37:11 PM

» Learning about versus learning how from Tryangulation
In recent weeks several of my favorite blogs have hit on the clash between the learning about paradigm and the learning how paradigm in the goals and practices of schools. First, Kathy Sierra's discussion of the failure of university science [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 13, 2006 9:06:58 AM

» Hacking Knowledge: 77 Ways to Learn Faster, Deeper, and Better from Zaakiy Siddiqui's Blog
Published on Thursday 30th of November, 2006 If someone granted you one wish, what do you imagine you [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 30, 2006 6:11:21 PM

Comments

That first quote? Love it. And it states almost exactly why I love having a Liberal Arts education--curious and well-grounded is a good way to be.

Posted by: --Deb | Nov 2, 2006 3:58:44 PM

I somewhat agree. The formal education I got in mathematics and science was not too different from your first circle, but I loved it. I think it boils down to an inner appreciation of knowledge and love of science (and the willingness to work hard). Unfortunately in a world where someone who can throw a ball gets more celebrity than a brilliant thinker, that is a tough proposition. In such an environment, there is a need to excite children, and there your ideas are bang on. I would take it one step further. The love of maths/science needs to come from middle school (or even before). Its pointless improving college education if school education has already made you hate the subjects.

Posted by: Deepak | Nov 2, 2006 5:26:20 PM

I'm not sure why you're picking on the U.S. system? Are you implying that the Chinese system is more agile (or any other country)? The countries that purport to have the "best" education systems seem to violate all of those rules. They teach rigorous fundamentals to be sure, but from an early age, Asian children are funneled into tracks and they certainly believe their entire careers are dependent on test taking abilities--get into the right school, get a VISA to study in the US, etc. They don't have time to enjoy the liberal arts perspective because they're so busy cramming their heads full of "useless" knowledge.

I don't disagree that we should reform some things, but the entire world is guilty of this shortsightedness, not just the U.S.

Posted by: Chris | Nov 2, 2006 6:40:42 PM

My degree is in mathematics, and what I loved about it was that it requires _both_ the intuition you talk about _and_ a disciplined methodology for developing and communicating proofs based on the intuition.

If you have just the left-brain stuff, you're a calculator rather than a mathematician, but having just the right-brain stuff and insufficient left-brain skills leads to two problems.

Firstly with the Jason Fried quote in mind, passion and curiosity are necessary, but you also need the skill to express what you need to express: for example a pianist can't interpret a piece by Bach without having spent years practising scales.

Secondly, with the Jacques Hadamard quote in mind, yes indeed logic does sanction intuition, but I wouldn't have said "merely", because intuitions are often wrong, even the ones that feel 100% right, and that's why you need the humility and discipline to lay out step by step, making all your assumptions explicit, how someone who doesn't share your intuition can arrive at the same conclusion. The formal discipline of mathematics gets you from "truthiness" to truth.

Posted by: I must have been lucky with my mathematics instructors | Nov 2, 2006 7:10:14 PM

I went to RPI from 1998-2002 (yes, during their recent decline into suckdom) studying engineering, but I must say, most of the things in the "What they actually need" circle we did learn/cover/talk about in class. Granted, we also did all the "What we teach" circle, and more so than those in the other, and with not enough emphasis, but those were not totaly foreign topics.

Posted by: SteveA | Nov 2, 2006 7:17:22 PM

Ah, further verification that attending my lovely liberal arts college was the write choice, regardless of my degree.

Thank you.

Posted by: Alredhead | Nov 2, 2006 7:18:26 PM

Ah, further verification that attending my lovely liberal arts college was the right choice, regardless of my degree.

Thank you.

Posted by: Alredhead | Nov 2, 2006 7:19:17 PM

I remember my first job out of the U.S. Navy was working at a Newspaper. Rather than walk through my resume, the manager pulled out a schematic, told me the symptoms, and asked me to troubleshoot the issue. I walked through how I would narrow down the issue and he hired me on the spot.

I would never be where I'm at if I hadn't been given that opportunity.

The problem with exams and tests are that they are written by people who take exams and tests for a living. I've taken a couple of Microsoft Practice exams and was shocked at my scores; even though I've been consulting on Microsoft technologies for years.

Technology exams should all be taken utilizing the actual hardware, the software, the internet, and any manuals you wish to buy. That's the way that we work every day... that should be the way we get tested.

If this is your hiring practice, you'll simply have a team of folks with lots of certificates that are great at taking tests. You may not have an application that actually works.

Posted by: Doug Karr | Nov 2, 2006 7:33:17 PM

I'd just like to echo Chris' comment above that the U.S. system is much better than the rest of the developed worlds in that we don't focus too early and everyone (physicists included) are expected to do well on critical analysis on poems as well as calculus to be a successful student.

I'd like to add that I think this post is pretty far off base. The overall point is well taken, but you're essentially arguing the opposite extreme: go from memorization and standardized tests to intuition and "wholistic thinking" (HAH!). It's nice to think that everyone should be innovative and able to tackle any problem, but entirely unrealistic. I don't want a whollistic structural engineer, I want someone who knows the physics of building buildings. Sure, you don't train someone for a single job for life, but most people will have one career in their life. Besides, at least in my personal experience our system is really not all that bad at teaching intuition and general problem solving. I have a B.S. in physics from one of the top 3 physics schools, and I'm currently pursuing a Ph.D. in physics in one of the other top 3 schools. My classes involve essentially zero memorization and focus on understanding the core concepts, building problem solving skills and intution.

Posted by: Jorge | Nov 2, 2006 7:38:18 PM

I'll have to disagree. Engineering education is not about happy feelings and social love-ins, or even design - there are degrees for those things too. It's about learning the laws of physics as they pertain to your chosen craft.

The shame is this: My engineering degree took 128 hours to complete. only 18 of those were NOT math/science. I believe I would have been better off if I had been forced/allowed to take at least double that in liberal arts, preferrably more. That makes engineering a 5-6 year program for a BS - hard to stomach for an 18 year old.

Later in life I found myself reading lots of classics and learning from them. My liberal arts friends did it in college - perhaps I should have too. But doing so didn't make me a better engineer, just a happier person.

Posted by: Damon | Nov 2, 2006 8:00:37 PM

Great comments as usual...

I just wanted to make a couple of clarifcations:

* I'm not picking on the US to the exclusion of other countries... I simply do not know enough about other educational systems to have a valid opinion. So while *I* am talking only about the US, it may apply to most other places as well.

Jorge: "but you're essentially arguing the opposite extreme: go from memorization and standardized tests to intuition and "wholistic thinking"

No, I'm not arguing that at all, but I probably made it sound that way. My point--and the reason I had that overlapping section in the venn diagram -- is not that we need to switch from one extreme to the other, but that we need to include more of what's outside the overlap on the right, and less of what's outside the overlap on the left. But you can see from my diagram that I included logic, key facts, memorization, symoblics, etc. as being an essential part of what's needed.

Jorge: "I have a B.S. in physics from one of the top 3 physics schools, and I'm currently pursuing a Ph.D. in physics in one of the other top 3 schools."

That's the point... you shouldn't NEED to be at one of the top 3 schools to get the kind of well-balanced education that you're obviously getting.

And what sparked this post for me is that I spent yesterday talking with an M.I.T. multiple-Ph.D (engineering/CS) professor who firmly believes that even at some of the top technology-focused schools (including M.I.T.), there are severe problems with the program--and the students they're graduating. (He blames it in large part on the marketing/PR of the schools -- they make it sound as though the reason to go there is to get the valuable job-getting degree, rather than because you care about the quality of the work you'll ultimately do in the field.)

Deepak: So, so, so well-put. It's not college we should be worried about.

Doug: I agree with you about the certifications/exams, and, well, I'm guilty of contributing to this problem as a developer of certification exams for Sun/Java! I will say that we've been trying hard over the last few years to shift the exams from purely "knowledge-based" to more "performance-based", where rather than ask a series of fact questions, we now show code that reflects a critical concept, and see if they can figure out what's going on (or what's going wrong), based on their understanding of how the language actually works.

I must have been lucky: point very well taken. The balance is what's most needed. My concern is that it's always been fairly out of balance, and this imbalance becomes more of a problem as the rate of change increases. Whatever the Moore's Law is for education, we're not keeping up with it either in content or--especially--in application of learning theory. Most public educational institutions in the US (and possibly elsewhere) are teaching with methods that are almost entirely in opposition to how the brain learns and remembers. These things need to change.

Posted by: Kathy Sierra | Nov 2, 2006 8:19:02 PM

Damon: I have to disagree with this: "Engineering education is not about happy feelings and social love-ins, or even design - there are degrees for those things too." If you believe that these skills -- intuition, creativity, aesthetics (see David Gelernter's "Machine Beauty") -- are about "happy feelings" and social love-ins, this is exactly the problem I'm talking about. We mock and dismiss as irrelevant the cognitive tools that are not only relevant but in some cases *more* relevant to how experts actually do their work in math, science, engineering...

When you say: "It's about learning the laws of physics as they pertain to your chosen craft." Well, there's learning the laws, sure, but factual knowledge will only get us so far. We need people who can solve entirely new classes of problems... who can imagine new laws. We need breakthroughs and conceptual leaps, not just more people who are able to comprehend and apply what's already been discovered and built.

You made a crucial good point about both your own education and why it's not an easy solution, given the already steep time burden we place on students. Of course, if better learning mechanisms were in place, education would be a lot more efficient...

Posted by: Kathy Sierra | Nov 2, 2006 8:33:14 PM

I would encourage you to look at Waldorf education as a good starting place for elementary education. My wife and I chose this for our children for some of the reasons you quoted above. I won't go into the details of Waldorf education though I will say that try to balance educating the head, heart and hands of the child. They happen to be several in your community (Boulder, Niwot and Denver).

Posted by: Marty Haught | Nov 2, 2006 8:49:25 PM

That graphic made me want to stand up and shout AMEN!

As a homeschooling (and actually quite normal) mom (gasp!) who spent the bulk of her life frustrated at the educational system...it just made my day to see everything laid out so clearly in your illustration. I am going to print that graphic out and stick it with our schoolbooks. It will be a great reminder of the goals we are trying to achieve.

Posted by: Lisa | Nov 2, 2006 9:08:32 PM

Marty: Wow -- coincidentally, my daughter--who has been working at Montessori schools (currently one in Boulder)--just told me she wants to work at a Waldorf, and was telling me some of her reasons. I like the Montessori approach a LOT--Skyler was there until high school--but there do seem to be some interesting things about Waldorf. OK, since you mentioned that, I'll make it a point to learn more. Thanks.

Posted by: Kathy Sierra | Nov 2, 2006 9:17:27 PM

This reminds me of the talk that Sir Ken Robinson gave at TED. It goes back a lot further than college. In his talk, Sir Ken talks about how our school system "educates out" the creativity from children, and what we can do to make things better. It's a must-see.

Posted by: Martin Polley | Nov 2, 2006 9:22:29 PM

Great subject - very close to home. I have two daughters, 6 and 4, who are just starting their academic careers. My oldest is in 1st grade here in Jefferson County and is in a program called 'investigations math'. The idea is to eliminate the rote memorization in favor of exploratory learning. I'm torn because I can't imagine higher level mathematics without having that basics memorized. On the other hand, I think rote memorization stifles creativity and makes students hate the subject. We actually need both. Think of all the amazing software that is written by creative engineers, all of which is based on repeatable, predictable algorithms. You’d have some pretty ugly programs out there if everyone had to refigure things like bubble sorts and link lists because a CS101 prof let the freshmen figure it out on their own and didn’t them when they were wrong. I think it’s cool to explore the many different ways to come up with the correct answer, but what I’m finding, at the 1st grade level, is that the teachers really aren’t supposed to tell the kids how to solve a problem so they don’t get the right answers. I see the higher level math – set theory, combinations and permutations right along with counting out 25 beans.

There is a raging debate over this whole approach, and I’m thinking that I will be doing the basic rote level exercises at home while they emphasize the exploratory techniques at school. It speaks to what you are talking about Kathy, but like all good government solutions, I think they are swinging way too far into the right circle. Look at all the amazing comments written here, all of them by people who learned the letters that comprise the words, as well as the spelling, grammar, etc. through rote memorization. This entire comment is based on a 26 letter sing song taught to me by a big yellow bird. Once I had that down I was able to use it to tell stories. I think there is an equivalent in mathematics as well.

Posted by: Matt Weiser | Nov 2, 2006 9:25:45 PM

Absolutely spot on!

Damon said "Engineering education is not about happy feelings and social love-ins, or even design... It's about learning the laws of physics as they pertain to your chosen craft."

Imho, this pretty well summarises the whole problem.
Firstly, engineering _is_ about design (at least, in part). By ignoring that fact, we're making the perpetuation of poor education all the easier.

Secondly, "learning the laws of physics" is at the very heart of the issue. What is happening with education at the moment is that students are "learning" things (eg. laws of physics). What is being largely ignored is trying to determine whether those students "understand" those things. This all gets back to previous posts about the difference between knowledge and understanding. The education system at the moment is biased (heavily) toward knowledge - whereas (imho, of course) it should be biased toward understanding.
The point where you have an understanding of a subject, _then_ you are able to make decisions that look for all the world like intuitive leaps.

And finally, it's comforting that the word "craft" was used - good engineering is as much a craft as it is a science. It is the creative elements of engineering that seem to be largely ignored (even actively discouraged in some cases) in the educational institutions.

The worrying effect that I see/have seen is not that it takes time and effort for students to learn all of the things they need to know to work effectively in the real world - but that the education system is so biased toward students who are able to absorb facts that it is excluding many gifted individuals from actually becoming engineers.
Basically, the graduates that we get are determined by the criteria that are used for assessing them. If we want to end up with good engineers, then the education system has to start assessing (and teaching) those things that make good engineers - rather than just what's easy.

Posted by: omni | Nov 2, 2006 9:45:13 PM

Relevant and provocative thoughts here. Have posted my take on it on my blog - here's the permalink - http://simply-speaking.blogspot.com/2006/11/teaching-what-is-needed.html

Posted by: Geetha Krishnan | Nov 2, 2006 10:45:13 PM

Kathy,

The issue as I see it (and I've been actively researching, playing with and exploring this exact topic for about 8 years now) is we don't actually know _HOW_ we do what we do. Take for example this post - How did you write it? I dare you to give me a strategy with exact steps to follow that allows me, or anyone else, to produce equivalent content. Bet you you can't.

We are raised and taught using a specific method. This is the method we think we should use to teach, when as you point out, it's not what we actually do. We do this, knowing (usually) there is a disconnect between the teaching method and the topic, but not having an alternative way to teach.

Hell, even teachers fall into this trap with teaching! I'm sure you have experience of learning from your favourite teacher in school. Now compare that with your most hated teacher. What makes the difference? It's certainly not the amount of information each teacher had.

On another note, every school and university stifles and stops intuition. Don't believe me? Do a well known research experiment and get different results from the standard. Your results are then branded 'wrong' and you need to repeat the experiment until you get it 'right'. This of course ensures you fit into the well travelled road, directing your thinking, behaviour and intuition to be the same as all others. This of course then stops the intuition being intuition and makes it mundane common sense. Or, to put it another way - great training on thinking inside the box.

I could discuss this topic for hours. Instead I'll simply say that the responsibility for learning is with the student.

Posted by: Michael Vanderdonk | Nov 2, 2006 11:40:05 PM

I'd have to agree with you Kathy. As an employee of an institution of higher education and an adjunct faculty therein, I am seeing more and more of this all the time. To the point, we're spending many more dollars teaching people the things they need to come up to speed to attend university as they are just NOT getting it in the public education system. This is the very reason for the decline in our business as we move from Generation X students who were passionate about learning (lifelong learners) to Generation Y who are concerned about not being left behind.

Of course the trend started more than 10 years ago. One of my professors once asked my MBA class how many were attending because it was their ticket to a better job or promotion. Everyone but me raised their hands. When he asked me what I was there for I told him I was there for the pure challenge, because I thrive on learning more and more. I also explained that as a programmer, that I would have significantly advanced my career through certifications but that those certification wouldnt have given me what I truly wanted, knowledge about the business needs that I was attempting to address daily in software. Thats the 'deep dive' I was after.

I have some ideas on how to address the situation at the institutional level. Obviously, a lot depends on the politics and the national zeitgeist on education. I think a balanced education would certainly serve us well. For my part, I believe the love of learning starts at home. My oldest son is a hungry mind because I spend 15 minutes with him every night before bed explain the science behind things like genes, blood, stars, chemistry, computers, etc. He's hungry to learn more about these things in school. He's become my passionate learner and that was and is the whole point.

Posted by: Greg B | Nov 3, 2006 12:20:42 AM

I recently found a very interesting website:
http://alreadylinked.com/
There you can purchase ad space for your Blog etc.

Posted by: jack | Nov 3, 2006 1:05:20 AM

I think one of the points that's not coming across in this post is that in "A Whole New Mind" the point isn't to go completely R-directed thinking, but to combine L-directed and R-directed thinking.

I'm suprised you didn't mention anything from "What the best college teachers do". They're already doing most of this, and concentrating on what matters. Maybe it's time that this became the norm?

Posted by: Mark Fowler | Nov 3, 2006 2:39:25 AM

This time, I do not agree at all. The right circle topics are not of the type that can be consistently teached. They came, none the less, from deep knowledge and thought on the left side circle topics.
An "Agile" knowledge as described is doomed to be skin level.

When I was a young engineering student, I had the occasion to confront with many European students of the same subject. I was regularly beating them despite the terrible reputation of the italian higl level education system. Why? Because we had more and more and more of the left side circle; more than anybody else.
Those techniques actually teached me how to learn and problem solving.

Posted by: Sevenoaks | Nov 3, 2006 2:42:37 AM

Isnt this where games, play and toys show up as emergent paths around the problem? People are attracted to the right sphere possibly from spending too much time, or effort, on the left one. This type of description of the state of education is another guiding logic which can help us make better games which almost per definition (if you agree with Raph Kosters theory of fun) teaches users about things.

I myself felt this problem a lot, altho in the swedish school system, and I believe I unconciously took it upon myself to shift my education towards understanding more about the right circle (much due to my fathers excellence in technical pyhsics and innovation but also) from playing a lot of games and musical instruments. (Mostly together with other people.)

Now my daughter isnt even 1 year old yet but I definately want her to feel better about spending a massive part of her young life in various schools. How do you go about influencing the system?

Posted by: Wolfe | Nov 3, 2006 3:52:32 AM

Your post provoked the following thoughts:

1) The apprenticeship model is a very effective way of combining 'rote' skills and more general skills including ways of approaching problems, communicating problems, working things out, etc - it combines observing, doing, coaching and a lof of other things. It is a shame this method is so tightly aligned with only practical skills/crafts in people's perception.

2) Problem-based (and team based) learning is an effective way of forcing learners to develop skills in imagination, communication, application, etc

3) We definitely need to extend the old school 'three Rs' - to include the foundation skills needed from now on: creativity, operacy, design thinking, interpersonal skills, and metacognition/how to learn

My British 2 pence worth,
Mindful

Posted by: mindful_learner | Nov 3, 2006 4:20:00 AM

Hi Miss Sierra, I'm Annie Alba, the director of Blogotion, a new high quality blogs directory. I was reading some entries of your blog "Creating Passionate Users" and I find it really interesting. We will be following your work in this blog, because it is a serious candidate to be included amog the 250 most important blogs of this year. If you are interested in our site, we invite you to visit it at:

http://www.freewebs.com/blogotion/

You can contact me any time. Congratulations and feel free to read our useful information.

Annie Alba

Posted by: Blogotion | Nov 3, 2006 4:29:18 AM

One more thought, we might all disagree on the solution, but there is no doubt that there is a real problem with 'rote' learning. We can obviosly see the problem for learners who 'fail' courses, but there is a more subtle problem around the type of knowledge that 'A grade' students walk away with. Howard Gardner is one of my psychologists who have shown that many students who get first-class degrees have their knowledge completely break-down when their knowledge is texted in unfamiliar contexts, such as problems presented in a slightly different way or using natural language terms. Without the mental alarm bells of certain terms or equations that fire of the rote knowledge, their learning often falls apart.

mindful

Posted by: mindful_learner | Nov 3, 2006 4:35:41 AM

Damon: "Engineering education is not about happy feelings and social love-ins, or even design - there are degrees for those things too. It's about learning the laws of physics as they pertain to your chosen craft."

If that were even half true then most engineers would have been replaced by expert systems years ago. You do a great disservice to engineers by implying that they need be no more than walking textbooks. Then you contradict yourself by calling it a "craft".

Christopher Alexander's works are read well beyond the discipline he practices which shows that you will not rise above mere competence if you think that all you need is facts.

Unless that is all that you aspire too.

Posted by: Peter Hickman | Nov 3, 2006 6:19:14 AM

Problem with performance based testing is twofold:

By the time the test is vetted and in service it is obsolete.

The tests tend to still not test what is necessary for the job.

From what I've seen, all the processes in place for deciding if someone is suitable for a technical job have less than 50% (number pulled out of my butt) success rate.

People have argued for years that the US educational system is the biggest block to learning, but I think that is focusing on on minor flaws. When my wife (PhD clinical psych) toured the local Montessori, she commented it seemed very cult-like. We put our kids in a local magnet public school, they are learning stuff in grammar school we didn't learn until high school. I'm still seeing the same mistakes I saw with my teachers. Kids aren't stupid, they see everything.

It all is moot, the educational system is going to go through fads. You can't teach the internal motivation necessary for success, it is a summation of life experience, some of which you wouldn't want to teach. Look at how successful first and second generation immigrants are compared to third. Why? Because they had to struggle. Look at how some cultural groups are more succesful at maintaining, well, success, over generations. There's a zeitgeist for the right side of your Venn diagrams, it can't be institutionalized in a free society.

Must be a good post, you got me ranting.

Posted by: a | Nov 3, 2006 8:15:18 AM

Awesome article and comments. I think that as long as state-run schools have no economic incentives to change teaching techniques or subject matter, they will continue to linger inside the left circle.

Posted by: Anonymous | Nov 3, 2006 8:18:28 AM

This reminds me of my college experience at the University of Utah in the 90's. I was an older student, had a 3.6 GPA (even higher in the pre-CS classes) and had been working as a professional programmer for 4 years. I applied to the CS program there and was told I needed to wait a year to become "competitive". I think by competitive they meant fitting into their idea of what an elite computer scientist should be. Ironically, about the same time the chairman of the department wrote an op-ed in the local newspaper bemoaning the fact that we didn't have enough Computer Science graduates for the local ecomony.

So, I switched my major to Mathematics, with an emphasis in Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Biology. I did this primarily because it used computers enough and got me out of there in a couple of years.

It is a decision I have never regretted, as instead of a narrow, academic degree I got to spend several years in an extremely stimulating, challenging, and creative environment where I got to solve problems I had never even considered before. Other than probability and statistics, I almost never use the specific mathematical techniques that I learned in those days. However, the while I was doing those exercises I gained the ability to discover, analyze, understand, and synthesize solutions to very, very difficult problems. IMHO, this is was significantly more valuable than learning how to optimize C++ code.

With technology (and life) moving faster and faster, this truly is the time of the learner, the generalist, the versatilist. I for one, welcome our non-specific overlords.

Posted by: Morgan Goeller | Nov 3, 2006 8:33:33 AM

First off the group Jacques Hadamard queried were the TOP 100 mathematicians and scientists who were obviously born with an inherent gift for the fields they ended up in. This is clearly not a representative sample of the population. You cannot look to the cream of the crop and tell everyone else, "That is what you need to be." There are things that cannot be taught and intuition is one of them. Some people can see the next step in trigonometric substitutions (or any other calculus related nightmare) without being told, but I highly doubt those same people would be able to frame a dramatic photograph with the right lighting or write a gripping, concise, short-story where every sentence pulls you deeper into the world they have created on the page. You need to read up on Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences because everyone is not going to have the same ability in every respect. Your own second paragraph points to the fact that these 100 people reported abilities in their fields that relied heavily what are typically deemed "right-brain" activities. That in itself flys in the face of the mountains of research that show the majority of people work from their left-brain on logic problems and their right-brain on more objective matters. while this seems like an excellent reason to study those specific individuals and their learning patterns, it hardly damns the processes the majority of human beings use to learn and solve problems. There is no "Moore's Law" for education and the assumption that there must be is what leads to things like standardized tests in the first place.

On a side-note, if Math/Science/Engineering "Suck" so bad in the US why is the US the #1 importer of students for these disciplines? Did you know that? While the US is shipping all kind of jobs over seas we are still the #1 destination around the world for higher education. How would you rectify this issue with your above blog post?

I think you need to approach this in a more holistic manner using all the tools in the toolbox e.g. psychology (mainly developmental), sociology, and economics (Steven Levitt has a controversial article about inherent intelligence you might want to find.) That seems more intuitive to me, rather than starting up "MATH/PHYS/ENGR 5760 - Intuition" at all the major universities. You are coming at this issue in a very one-sided manner and it goes without saying that education and the fundamentals of how we learn are both highly complex. If you want to know where I am coming from, I have a BS in Economics and I am working on an MBA with an emphasis on strategic management(both at your average public institution, University of North Texas), my wife, mother, grandmother, aunt, and sister are all teachers. My dad, granddad, and uncle are all engineers (dad and granddad-civil, uncle-mechanical.) So our education system is a frequently and hotly debated issue.

Posted by: Mark7r0n | Nov 3, 2006 8:34:30 AM

"What experts use to do their work are the things we don't teach. We focus almost exclusively on how to talk about the work. "

Take a second to think of an Eng BS as a degree in a foreign language.

So your question is why 18-21 year olds, whos' parents decided they were going to be Engineers and who are more interested in other subjects, can't write poetry at the end of 4 years?

I think that you post and these comments touch on the problem that education fails many people. By the time kids hit college they already trained to memorize and test. Colleges aren't going to fix that, the liberal arts are not going to fix that.

I take the homeschool/Waldorf folks very seriously. Learning compounds, the ability to assimilate new knowledge is proportional to the amount of knowledge one is already adroit with.

Posted by: money5h0t de scul | Nov 3, 2006 9:04:51 AM

Let me try to put things in perspective.

In Higher education , US is light years ahead of any other country (and will remain so for decades to come). Why? all the smart guys whom I know who want to do higher studies (after graduation that is) wants and mostly does that in the US. I know enough of them to generalize on such a grand scale. (I am a 25 yr old Indian graduate in Computer Science and Engg.) A lot of them even end up teaching there in your ivy leagues.

India's engineering/science/math(even economics) education system SUCKS. Ding. Objective fact.

So the conclusion is that it sucks in US and is much more worse in the other countries.

Formal education, anyway is over-rated. At best it can be a mediocrity creater and worst it can be a life screwuper.

The quickest anyone can overcome his formal education and learn from the school of hard knocks, that is when he really starts to have a productive life.

Solution? A degree and gradeless school? Don't know and admittedly it is more complex than that. But I think the real killer is the mug up for exams. And mugging for exams is not education.

Posted by: Jay | Nov 3, 2006 9:06:50 AM

I haven't met anybody in the U.S. who would disagree with these statements. Yet why is our education system (both public and private) so hard to change?

Maybe math and science should be taught by mathematicians and scientists instead of "teachers".

Kathy - When you get a chance post a top twenty reading list. You have a lot of books that everyone must read but they are scattered throughout your posts.

Posted by: Joel | Nov 3, 2006 9:10:47 AM

Matt, I have to disagree with your comment:

"Look at all the amazing comments written here, all of them by people who learned the letters that comprise the words, as well as the spelling, grammar, etc. through rote memorization."

I was exposed to very little if any rote memorization in English in elementary school. I did my elementary school in a French immersion system and my teachers often neglected to even bother with our mandatory English lessons. We did extensive memorization, drills and grammar tests in French. What happened to me after elementary school? I went on to forget most of the French I had learned over the course of eight years. My English skills aren't lacking either.

I was always a top student, much to the surprise of everyone around me, since I didn't normally appear to be putting much effort in. That was true though, good grades never really were a motivator for me. Passion, yes, curiosity, yes, but not good grades. If there was anything I did differently than anyone else I would definitely say it was using some of the skills in the right circle within the constraints of the school system to do better on tests and assignments (despite their best efforts).

On a related note, my senior year science fair project was a cognitive science project. The conclusion my team drew from that project was that all students would benefit from classes that teach lateral thinking and creativity, etc, a privilege ironically only extended to the top few students in our system. The judges (all teachers and school board members) hated it, we came in last place in our category.

Posted by: Kevin | Nov 3, 2006 10:12:00 AM

I did get an engineering degree. I have a B.S. and an M.E. in Computer and Systems Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (the oldest school of engineering and applied science in the US). There is certainly a "half life" in facts and approaches taught in engineering school because the practice continues to advance. I did study a number of things in engineering school I don't use. Predominantly because I was trained to be an engineer in general rather than for a specific job. I think there are some good points in the article.

But, mostly what one learns in engineering school is problem solving. This is very little memorization of facts. The classic engineering test in a class like Thermodynamics is "here are a few problems, feel free to consult your book for any formulas you may need, good luck." If you liked word problems in Jr High or High School you might like engineering. A lot of it has to do with figuring out what the actual problem is as much as solving an equation.

My day job is the Executive Vice President of Engineering and Operations so I have hired a large number of engineers and scientists in my day. I have hired engineers from around the world and generally find that the ones who do well in school actually do the job very well. I think in general the "sky is falling" is mostly crap.

Posted by: Chris (Amateur Traveler podcast) | Nov 3, 2006 10:13:43 AM

I am currently reading "The Last Child in the Woods". It strikes me that people of my generation enjoyed the style of learning on the left because we spent our whole childhood outside doing the stuff on the right. Kids today don't do that in nature. We had the balance going in if you will.

I was a Chemistry major for two years and until I hit Organic Chemistry and had to deal with the pre-med students I loved it. Being in a class full of people who were memorizing for a grade was painful when I really wanted to understand Chemistry.

The problem also starts earlier than College. I spent an hour one night trying to explain the quadratic equation to a girl who had never used a piece of graph paper.

Posted by: Julie | Nov 3, 2006 10:22:19 AM

Personally, I've become a believer in the Meyer's Briggs test which says that there are basically four types of people in the world, and only one of these types are true scientists. Results from this test tell us that true scientists only make up about 15% of the population (I'm pretty sure with no gender bias), and so I think this puts a limit on the number of effective administrators and teachers -- and students -- who could design and execute -- and learn -- a true science curriculum. The second problem is that science has become a necessary component for functioning in today's society, and so you also need a much larger curriculum for people who are not born with a true scientific intuition. This means that the real scientists have to slug it out in classes that are really designed for the other 85% who will have varying degrees of scientific intuition, and hence the problem you are citing.

Posted by: David | Nov 3, 2006 10:45:38 AM

The problem with engineering school isn't what they teach, it's how they teach. In college I often heard repeated in the halls by the students: those who can do, those who can't teach.

Too often teachers teach because they loved the process of learning in school. But the majority of students HATE learning in school, and so the system isn't set up to teach them to be good engineers. So many of the teachers couldn't have been the happiest engineers in the workplace or else they'd still be out there instead of teaching. And Memorization is next to completely pointless in college, especially when you only remember long enough to take the test. In a job, if you use a formula often enough, you either have it written down somewhere convenient, or you eventually get it memorized from use. So many student's don't learn how to work well, they learn how to get-by.

Apprentice-ships should be brought back. In reality, the only way to learn is to do. I learned so much more in my first job than in school. It'd be cheaper for parents to feed a child for an additional 4 years while they worked for free at a career where they'd gain hands-on-learning.

To the contrary of this article; I think people don't focus early enough. College has become a sham, it's high school all-over-again, with more drinking. I understand it's supposed to "expand your horizons" but really College is where you should become more focused. Engineering should be 2 years of classes that focus in on math, art & writing. The rest of the time should be apprenticeship at your chosen career.

Posted by: kath | Nov 3, 2006 10:47:18 AM

Thank you for the wonderful discussion piece. However, as noted in the various comments, you need to be careful when generalizing from such great heights.

There are a number of research reports that suggest that there is a crisis in our educational institutions. What you don't see published are the number of great things happening everyday in classrooms throughout the globe. I guess it depends on where you look.

Pedagogy is not a required subject for professors and can be poorly conceived and taught by teacher educators. I agree that how and what we teach in classrooms needs to be re-visioned. However, our post-modern condition makes this change quite complex.

Here is where I see social software playing an important role, i.e., by allowing practitioners a way to engage, reflect, share, etc. in a virtual space. It would also be nice if we could get practitioners/educators to be open to the notion of researching their own practice, i.e., questioning their own designs in a community that supports improvement.

So, thanks for starting this conversation. Am a big fan of your work and I wish you the best.

Posted by: Christopher D. Sessums | Nov 3, 2006 10:49:37 AM

I'm sorry not to have read all the comments before me, but there are two things I want to add: I'm German and the German system is very similar to the US-system in this regard. Especially the "doing more of what we're already doing"-thing.

When I studied music education I worked in IT. Me, and the couple of musicologists I brought in, did much better in learning new programs and procedures than the students working there who studied computer science. I believe that the musicologists were much better at the whole process and filling out the gaps by themselves.

Posted by: Susanne | Nov 3, 2006 10:52:49 AM

I find it interesting that the education system we use today originates in the times of the Industrial Revolution and the mechanistic worldview. The goal was a standardized output, hence linear, predictable, controlled learning. We just can't abandon the assembly line in schools. The assumptions underlying this system are no longer working.
On a more personal note, my husband who is an engineer and an MBA discovered that he actually liked to learn only after he began playing music in high school. His passion for music translated into the overall academic success.

Posted by: Anastasia | Nov 3, 2006 10:58:48 AM

I got my BS and MS in computer science at Worcester Polytechnic Institute and my decision to come to WPI was based precisely on some of the things you talk about in your post, Kathy.

I originally wanted to get a degree in graphic design, but when I looked at a few art schools I realized that I could never be happy there. The reason? They seemed to make art so structured (draw 100 self-portraits by Monday, practice painting with watercolors, etc.) that it took all the life out of it. Granted, I don't know what art schools are *really* like since I didn't go to one, but I do have some experience taking art classes at a community college, so my perception is not completely baseless.

So, disheartened as I was with the original schools I was so very interested in, I decided to take a stab at something I knew nothing about -- computer science. I visited WPI and instantly fell in love with it. This (a tech school, mind you) was exactly the kind of creative environment I wanted.

WPI follows something they call the WPI Plan, which is project-based and consists mainly of three parts:

- Humanities
- Social Science
- Engineering

For the humanities requirement, everyone has to take 5 humanities classes and do a "Sufficiency" project in a humanities topic of their choice. This can be very diverse -- from papers about mystical symbols in Buddhism (my topic) to musical performances. If WPI doesn't offer the humanities courses you want to take, you are free to take them at one of the other 9 schools in Worcester.

The social science requirement consists of taking 2 social science courses and doing an "Interactive Qualifying Project" (IQP). This is usually done in a group and the purpose is to apply technology/engineering principles to a social issue. Many students go abroad for this. I went to Switzerland; my topic was "Analysis of the Dog Training Industry in Switzerland". Some other examples are projects about how aquaculture can benefit the country of Namibia or measuring the feasibility of solar power for a small village in Thailand.

The final requirement is a Major Qualifying Project (MQP), which is specific to your area of study. This is also often done in a group. My CS MQP was a computer simulation of C. elegans embryogenesis (a small worm studied by biologists).

The combination of these requirements is what attracted me to WPI and what taught me to love engineering. It showed me that engineering is all about problem-solving and that takes a lot of creativity. The technical "facts" you learn in class are the tools you need to come up with creative solutions.

So, I wouldn't dismiss engineering education on the whole as being "sucky". There *are* some schools out there doing The Right Thing.

Posted by: Natasha Lloyd | Nov 3, 2006 11:05:51 AM

WRONG!

The syntheis or creation of ideas stems from someone who has MASTERED a wide domain of knowledge. Try to get someone to be creative when they have little knowledge of the subject.

To master a domain of knowledge requires practice. A lot of practice.

Practice to mastery is where we fail in our education. Mastery of a topic is not possible in a semester. Yet many of my college courses were limited to that amount of time. Continual practice is necessary for all skills to obtain and maintain mastery. This practice activity is usually left to the student which is usually abandonded for other activities. (The only area where this doctrine of practice is enforced is in the performing arts and atheletics)

Once all those topics are mastered, to be automatically recalled when needed, people create new meaning from all the information and release great inventions.

So for gods sakes, lets make people learn things while they are in school and skip the creativity stuff because the learning comes first.

Posted by: prices | Nov 3, 2006 11:06:10 AM

WRONG!

"Try to get someone to be creative when they have little knowledge of the subject."

Some of the best innovations come from people who don't base their thought processes on deeply ingrained assumptions.

Now you go try to get anyone to master *any* domain of knowledge without the creativity or intuition to see how that knowledge could actually be useful to them or applies to something they actually are interested in (beyond getting a good grade.)

Posted by: Kevin | Nov 3, 2006 11:44:53 AM

To those who objected to my statment about learning the laws of physics:

You misunderstand me (or I misspoke). Engineering *is* a craft, and can be a creative process. The prerequisite to practice that craft is huge amounts of hard, technical knowlege. I happen to think current engineering education does a pretty good job at teaching that knowlege, and the critical thinking required to apply it. Mine did, at least - and there are far more prestigious alma maters than my own.

Perhaps I disagree with the premise: I never had to memorize anything in engineering school, useless or otherwise. I was never given formulaic solutions to standard problems. Outdated techniques are a byproduct of academia, and are not a particular product of engineering education. Almost everything we did in school was geared toward understanding fundamentals and applying those fundamentals to (necesarily at first) simple problems.

Engineers do tend to lack certain of the fuzzy (and important!) skills. But it doesn't follow that the way we teach the hard skills is flawed. It just means that we need to teach more to engineering students. How you fit that into a 4 year degree is the trick. I'm not sure you can.

The bottom line is that structural dymanics of an aircraft (for example) is not something you can learn in nice, 2-4 week chunks of "agile learning". It requrires hours of broad study, and the help of an engineering mentor who has done it before. You just can't teach that in school. You can only prepare people to learn it on the job.

Posted by: Damon | Nov 3, 2006 12:26:43 PM

some waldorf bits:
http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/yak/2004-01/msg00033.html

MichaelStrong (founder of the Flow group) has some experience with Montessori, but I think they're still stuck in an unpublished book....
http://webseitz.fluxent.com/wiki/MichaelStrong

Edge got some recommendations on science-curriculum changes from people a couple years back:
http://webseitz.fluxent.com/wiki/z2003-01-07-EdgeScienceAdvisor

Some other bits:
http://webseitz.fluxent.com/wiki/EducatingKids
http://webseitz.fluxent.com/wiki/StimulatingLearningProjects
http://webseitz.fluxent.com/wiki/ExposingYoungKidsToScience

Posted by: Bill Seitz | Nov 3, 2006 12:45:57 PM

Kathy, good points. But I am curious which countries you are thinking of as a counter example? You say it sucks in the US and the solution is to do something different, presumably you have the pedagogical techniques or curriculum of some other place in mind as a better way?

Posted by: Jim Idyl | Nov 3, 2006 3:25:11 PM

I did an MS in Industrial Engineering at Berkeley after a BA in Math. A professor of mine told me that Berkeley, along with a bunch of other colleges, actually threatened to pull out of ABET and offer unaccredited degrees, because they felt that ABET's degree requirements were so strict that students had no room left for electives and other subjects that are critical to becoming a well-rounded citizen.

That said... I'm going to admit to a slight pet peeve of mine that's been pressed a few times on this blog... the term "broad liberal arts education."

Really, guys, if all you've studied is humanities and social sciences, you aren't broadly educated. Math/Science/Engineering majors are required to take a lot of humanities courses in college (as an undergrad math major, I had to take a six course sequence in world cultures and history, a year of foreign languages and literature, three upper division courses in history, and two courses in art). I actually doubled in Math/Literature, so I was inclined to do it anyway... but my impression was that among students with a single major, science majors got excellent exposure to the humanities, but not the other way around.

It does make a difference in our future leaders... personally, I'd rather have a FEMA director with the intellectual tools to understand the both the political *and* structural aspects of building levees.

Posted by: Geoff B | Nov 3, 2006 4:33:19 PM

My myers-brigg personality type is ENTP, and I am very strong on intuition. I'm not so huge on exhausive and endless detail work, which in some ways makes me a bad engineer. On the other hand, my heavily right brained personality does seem to make me a better software writer. I've been told I learn quickly, and I certainly didn't have a hard time in university.

So I think I personally made it through the whole university thing without the complaining I hear. I thought university was great - no pressure, no oversight, you can do what you want, on your own time, how you want to do it. No one takes attendance, and you can more or less learn how you want to.

Of course, the problem there is that there isn't enough structure for people. Many people just simply don't know HOW to learn. Or have any curiosity.

Also I was homeschooled. Who knows.

Posted by: ryan | Nov 3, 2006 5:38:20 PM

Interesting stuff. This entry ties in with a lot of the things I think about and sometimes blog (or at least pretend to) about since I just graduated from college with a degree in studio art and mathematics at Scripps in Claremont. I did not have the kind of education you describe for my math degree (my math classes were at Harvey Mudd), but since I work at an engineering firm, I definitely see it among coworkers. Read: http://windyconditions.net/is-anything-art/. Oh, liberal arts education!

Posted by: Natalya | Nov 3, 2006 9:52:01 PM

OK, we pretty much agree on what the problem is, and have lots of strategies for solution. Now we need to make a tactical plan.

(1) How do we destroy the management infrastructure that thrives on doing the wrong thing?

(2) How do we identify the teachers who are doing the right thing and reward them? They are usually punished. A few keep doing the right thing anyway.

One thing's for sure: It's going to take a ton of money to fix. So,

(3) How can we get the givers of all knowledge and wisdom (the news media) to be our allies?

(4) How can we generate the money needed to fight the war? (hint: (3) is a prerequisite)

Posted by: Bob Denny | Nov 3, 2006 11:00:36 PM

If I looked at the venn diag for this when I was in college I'd say you were about right. However, with the benefit of looking back (10 yrs now), I'd have to say I was fortunate that I actually learned the stuff on the right side... I just didn't know it, nor was I told that was what it was called.

So much of it comes down to the individual instructor (yes, univ issues will cause tilt to one side or the other)...

Another way to look at it...
First - what we should hope to be taught is the concept that a byproduct of friction is heat.
Second - the assignment is create fire.
Third - The passing students apply the concept with creativity to rub two sticks together.

But instead, what is sometimes taught (or learned through off-campus "tutoring" companies) is that by rubbing two sticks together you can create fire. That is how to pass the test.

Posted by: Graydon | Nov 4, 2006 12:05:23 AM

Very interesting topic and article. I can relate because I spend some of my time in the #C++ IRC channel, where I get to help many students with their programming problems. The problem I have noticed is that they are unable to use an approach different from what had been taught in class. It's not because they are unwilling, but because they are not permitted by their professor. In my opinion, this is VERY bad because it restricts the curiosity and creativity of the student. An engineer (or any person for that matter) should learn to be able to look for other ways to solve problems or even come up with their own.

Posted by: George Faraj | Nov 4, 2006 12:26:42 AM

Something related, posted recently by a VC, that deals with business schools:

http://www.paulallen.net/2006/11/03/business-students-launching-companies/

Posted by: Michael Vanderdonk | Nov 4, 2006 6:36:14 AM

We should go back to classical education and embrace 'mastery' vs. 'passing tests'. The problem is the goal of our education isn't well educated students who have mastered a diverse field of thought but productive people who can work/contribute to the machine of our society.

Posted by: D. Goodmanson | Nov 4, 2006 12:40:18 PM

Kathy that is a fantastic post

Posted by: Alex | Nov 4, 2006 2:15:42 PM

No worries Kathy, the "real" intelligent students in my computer science courses learned to game the system a long time ago, and now just read blogs like yours during class to catch-up on what actually matters. That's the unfortunate truth of it.

Posted by: scottB | Nov 4, 2006 5:13:50 PM

As an education professor I've been reading your blog for some time and am consistently struck by how well it resonates with what educators ought to do -- create passionate users because what happens in the educational environment is irresistably cool and it allows you to kick ass.

As you note here, that's generally not what schools do. And you do a fair job of identifying what they typically do. Many who posted have been lucky to have done things quite different from the norm.

The US is in trouble when compared to other countries, but while some are better than others, I don't think anyone is unviersally doing wonderfully. There are many reasons, but I think the biggest is that we can't break from the existing practice and the dominant operating system of schools is so ingrained in our society we don't really give it much thought.

The reality is that there was no educational equivalent of Charles Darwin who discovered a set of natural laws and spelled it out in _On_the_Origin_of_Courses_. There is nothing (or at least nothing substantial) in the research on how people learn that indicates spending an hour or so mostly listening to someone talk three or five times a week for a semester or a year is a good way to build an understanding. We do that because, at least in our short sited view of history, it's the way it's always been done (and it works well enough for certain things).

What does the research say?

See the work of the National Research Council's Committee on How People Learn for a good overview.

Here are three key findings from one of their reports:

1. Students come to the classroom with preconceptions about how the world works. If their initial understanding is not engaged, they may fail to grasp the new concepts and information that are taught, or they may learn them for purposes of a test but revert to their preconceptions outside the classroom.

2. To develop competence in an area of inquiry, students must:
a) have a deep foundation of factual knowledge,
b) understand facts and ideas in the context of a conceptual framework, and
c) organize knowledge in ways that facilitate retrieval and application.

3. A "metacognitive" approach to instruction can help students learn to take control of their own learning by defining learning goals and monitoring their progress in achieving them.

This is how the key findings are stated in
How People Learn: Bridging Research and Practice

M. Suzanne Donovan, John D. Bransford, and James W. Pellegrino, editors

avaialable at: http://newton.nap.edu/html/howpeople2/

Also see:
How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School

John D. Bransford, Ann L. Brown, and Rodney R. Cocking, editors

avaialable at: http://newton.nap.edu/html/howpeople1/

And:
How Students Learn: History, Mathematics, and Science in the Classroom

at: http://newton.nap.edu/catalog/10126.html (note that while this one doesn't include full text in as easy a format as the two above, the intro is both wonderful and available as a pdf).

Don

Posted by: Don Duggan-Haas | Nov 4, 2006 10:36:26 PM

Interesting discussion thus far. On the pedagogy side, I don't see anything really new here. The ideas and instructional strategies referred/implied on the right side of the venn diagram are consistent with the writing of John Dewey in the 1930s and many others. More recently, they have become operationalized under a variety of different names: constructivism, problem-based learning (medical schools), goal-based scenarios, situated cognition, cognitive apprenticeship, authentic activities, emergent learning and on and on. In other words, we know how to create learning experiences that embody the right side of the diagram. People do it everyday.

So why doesn't this happen everywhere? Charlie Reigeluth, of Indiana University, writes that conditions and outcomes drive the design of instructional strategies (learning experiences). A key condition is the context in which a learning experience lives. This includes such things as the number of learners, how much $$ are allocated, time made available for the learning experience, and so on. The point is, the right side of the venn diagram consumes significant resources to be done right. Are you willing to spend two to three times what education costs now to deliver that kind of experience? I know the Montesorrians are and I suspect if we multiply the hours spent by a homeschooler parent by a reasonable hourly rate the "value" of that kind of learning experience would be staggering.

Case in point. For the last five years I taught a 200 student university course (as an adjunct professor) that aims to achieve the right side of the venn diagram. Argue all you want about the size of the course, but that's the reality of undergraduate education in a fast-growing university. To achieve the kind of learning experience represented on the right side of the venn diagram, it takes me 20 hours per week, and a graduate assistant another 10. And even with ths amount of time, I still have to take shortcuts. With the amount I'm paid, it translates into about $15 per hour. Obviously I'm passionate about creating great learning experiences and have the means to support my family in other ways.

Kathy's argument seems to place most of the blame on those providing learning experiences, but ignores the responsibilities learners have. Another case in point from the course I described above. In Spring 2005, I charged 50 students with academic dishonesty. In a "practical application" exercise, these students chose to falsify data, forge signatures, and collude to defraud.

The right side of the venn diagram gives students freedom to explore. It requires trust. But in my experience I have come to believe that some (not all) of my beloved undergraduates do not have the maturity to assume the responsibility offered by the right side of the venn diagram. Hence, the lure of the left side is the easy way out. I'm resisting the dark side because I strongly believe in what the right side represents. However, given human nature, can we assume others will be equally resistant?

Posted by: heyhoner | Nov 5, 2006 10:42:31 AM

My first reaction was that one of the reasons I went and studied maths at university was that it involved way less rote memorisation and regurgitation and far more problem solving and creativity than the more liberal arts subjects at school did! I got lots from mixing with students studying other subjects other university and was lucky to be at a place conducive to that, but I would have hated being forced to formally study non-techie subjects, however much I enjoy learning about them for fun.

I also do think that if you asked lots of top concert pianists say about their work then they wouldn't talk about how they learned to hit the right keys with the right finger for each note, but I'm sure they all had to go through that stage once.

But, yes, there are problems with how these subjects are taught of course. I think there are various barriers to changing this. It's so much more formulaic and easier to assess left-brained type stuff than right-brained things. While there are various strictures on assessment in universities, we're going to have to find ways to make it simpler for teachers to assess non-factual type learning.

Then there's curricula - these are hard to change, mostly because of tradition and dependencies between courses. They are normally so packed, that as a teacher you have little choice but to zoom through everything regardless of whether some of the students have yet to grasp the basic concepts so far.

It's also a lot harder teaching stuff on the right-hand side of the Venn diagram - I've tried but it's difficult with large classes, limited time, awkward physical spaces designed only for traditional lecture delivery and students at very different levels of ability and understanding. If someone as enthusiastic as me about this sort of stuff has struggled, it doesn't really surprise me that most folk, whose career depends on their research not their teaching, don't try.

Posted by: Juliette | Nov 5, 2006 2:49:34 PM

I think it depends on the college. I was a management major at a technical university, Georgia Tech in the early 1990's. In fact, I learned there about the Internet before they even called it that - we were using Hypercard in Apple and talking about hypertext.

I did learn all of these things on the right as well as a lot of studying. AS I advanced into my major there were many projects that forced me to be real-world to be a storyteller, to aggregate information into meaningful answers.

As a person who has left the businessworld I struggle to integrate such things into my teaching and have been allowed to a large extent to do so. However, I am the exception because I teach at a small private school that has given me flexibility. Many of my public school counterparts bemoan the Test Test Test syndrome they have gotten into.

Some of them had already had standardized testing four times between August and October!

We cry for better education but it is kind of like drawing a pint of blood every week to test and see if a child is OK -- keep drawing blood and you'll kill the child.

We're killing curiosity with well meaning tests because of the pressure put on educators to substantiate what they are doing.

The old adage -- "Dissect the frog and you kill the frog" is true.

Our school got rid of exams last year and moved to large genuine assessment projects requiring critical thinking -- who fought it -- the parents. They are concerned they won't be ready for college where huge exams are the mainstay. I believe they will be ready for life and they understand the material much better through our system.

Keep preaching, Kathy - perhaps there are some key influential decision makers who will listen.

It is about thinking not regurgitation!

Posted by: Vicki Davis | Nov 5, 2006 6:50:35 PM

These two quotes are a big part of my outlook learning and "skill sets" - from Albert Einstein "Imagination is more important than knowledge" and form Frank Ogden's book "The Last Book You'll Ever Read : And Other Lessons from the Future", "Hire on attitude alone. Credentials are from the past, and past skills are obsolete."

Posted by: mxt | Nov 5, 2006 7:37:07 PM

Apparently grammar education isn't at the peak of its game, either. "Disconnect" is a verb. ;-)

Posted by: saulgoode | Nov 6, 2006 5:46:06 AM

Great Post! To me, education is about building up a tool belt to equip the student when they go out into the real world. Today we teach the theory behind a hammer, and the mechanics of swinging a hammer, but less about keeping the nail straight, when to use a screw (and screwdriver) instead, or how to select a different tool when (not if) conditions change.

Posted by: Kevin | Nov 6, 2006 9:12:58 AM

Wow - thanks for a really insightful post. I usually don't take the time to blog about a blog - but couldn't help myself.

You can check out my long-winded post here: http://www.businessinnovationfactory.com/weblog/archives/2006/11/linkage_creatin_1.html

The Business Innovation Factory has a strong focus on innovation in education. Reading your post Kathy, I'm reminded of a couple organizations who are trying to change the status quo. One is Dean Kamen's (Segway inventor) FIRST. Kamen says very aptly: "You have teenagers thinking they're going to make millions as NBA stars when that's not realistic for even 1 percent of them. Becoming a scientist or an engineer is."

Kamen's FIRST, or For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology, is a program in some 7,000 high schools and middle schools across the country. One of the program offerings is an annual robotics competition. FIRST is driven by Kamen's hope that scientists will (and should) be as recognized and valued in this country as athletes or rock stars.

Kamen recently shared his story with our community and brought in 3 high schoolers and the robots they built. (You can see the video here: http://www.businessinnovationfactory.com/innovationstorystudio/bif2_kamen.php ) The robots were amazing and the kids were incredibly engaged. What Kamen has tapped into and what we all intuitively know is that kids learn by doing. Which is something Kathy alluded to with her reference to the Hadamard survey.

Through organizations like FIRST, students are connecting the dots between what they learn in school and how that can be transitioned into something very real, very tangible, and ultra-cool/creative. To Kathy's point, the kids are provided tools for thought (i.e. visualization, intuition) instead of just tools for communication (i.e. code.

I also want to point you in the direction of Dennis Littky and the MET School. Because I see this argument extending far beyond the likes of science/math/engineering. MET School co-founder Dennis Littky has created an education model based on the belief that schools must educate every student equally, one student at a time. There are no required classes, no tests and no grades. The main idea is that traditional methods of education and evaluation fail to meet the needs of individual students, leading to low motivation, poor grades and high drop-out rates. The Met, instead, takes a “one-student-at-a-time” approach that capitalizes on each student’s strengths, interests and learning style.

Gone is the standard curriculum that most students must take – algebra, civics, chemistry and the like – which in most high schools is considered a base of knowledge students will need in college. But that’s the beauty of The Met. Says Littky: “Colleges don’t expect the kids to come in knowing all this biology, for example. What they’re saying is that they prefer kids who love science, who know how to get information and who know how to solve problems. So we put less of an emphasis on the traditional bodies of knowledge.”

I believe people like Dean Kamen and Dennis Littky (whose program btw is very successful) are much needed proof points for future programs that challenge current educational assumptions while maintaining a balance between creativity and accountability.

Posted by: Chris Flanagan | Nov 6, 2006 12:28:34 PM

Isn't this an issue when the word "measure" comes to mind?

I did very well in colleage almost without study (those scary tales about sleepless nights of study are alien to me). I did it because I loved to learn and to understand [how things work, the "whys" of history, etc], and so all the knowledge became "interconnected". But so did a guy who couldn't solve a mildly difficult problem but spent a lot of time doing extra work (and kissing butt, but that's another story).

It takes more effort to test skill, so [school/college] just test trivia games (ok, ok, "knowledge").

In work, it's "harder"to measure performance, so the companies measure time.

It's more difficult to measure quality, so we measure quantity.

It's more difficult to measure customer satisfaction (ehem... passion), so we measure short-term profit.

In this days everything is about measure, even if you just measure a tiny bit of a complex cosmos...

What you ask for is what you get.

(Loving your posts, as usual =)

Posted by: JACH | Nov 6, 2006 1:52:42 PM

I agree completely. I just graduated from a dual engineering degree, and the key things (such as design and intuition) I taught myself. I learned absolutely nothing about web development, as I'm now working as a software engineer. Have you heard of the Olin College of Engineering in Boston? I think they are on the brink of something big... I like what I see in that small school.

Posted by: Ryan | Nov 6, 2006 4:53:53 PM

The worst things that schooling does is teaching facts in a vacuum.

One of the reasons I believe that Good Eats and The Da Vinci Code are so popular is that they connect things together: food, history, physics, art, biology, chemistry and more. But how are we taught in schools little cubicles on knowledge without relationships to each other. This course is Math. That course is History. So we grow up ready to live in little cubicles of life. Without hooks to the rest of your life.

Self-directed learning lets you build hooks between facts in your mind. Say for example you have a lot of fruit from the garden and you want to can it. In the water bath canning process you kill off various microbes at different temperature and with acidity. And what you are doing is pasteurization. But if you go out to learn more about canning you find that the water bath canning process owed nothing to Louis Pasteur and his discoveries as the man who came up with it lived long before him, who won the grand prize Napoleon instituted to find a way to keep a large army on the move fed throughout the year. And when Wellington defeated Napoleon at Waterloo, which was where Wellington slept the night before and was quite a ways from the site of the actual battle, a chef invented Beef Wellington to celebrate the occasion.

Facts are like those burrs with all the little Velcro hooks on them, they want to hook together messily and we can find interesting patterns, but in our schooling we strip off the hooks and now the seeds can't hold onto anything, fall by the wayside and are lost.

I am glad I got an engineering degree but some of the best things I learned came from the extra curricular times in the library of wandering around to a section I hadn't been in and choosing a book at random and reading it. It isn't the facts that are important but the relationships and patterns those facts make within us.

Posted by: S Fassmann | Nov 6, 2006 9:28:54 PM

@I must have been lucky with my mathematics instructors:

I think you got it just right. Your quote about truthiness is now on my home page.

Posted by: Mitchell Wand | Nov 7, 2006 5:22:57 AM

Your ven diagram and this whole thing is a perfect representation of the frustration I am experiencing in business school.

I came to business school because I love business. Because marketing fascinates me. Because innovation and entrepreneurship fascinates me. I came to excel in those areas and learn more in those areas. To really learn.

I haven't. It's been exactly as you described. I'm lucky if they try to test me on a fundamental concept. In my management in marketing class it's all testing definitional knowledge based on what I memorized. It's stupid and thus far has been the biggest waste of my time up until I get my degree, where i'll promptly say "I'm glad that educational waste is over with."

Posted by: Nathan | Nov 7, 2006 2:09:10 PM

I love your graphic...

I teach at an engineering college, and am trying to share creative values with my students.

In general, our freshmen are very bright and hard working. They're a wonderful group, and I don't think I'd be happy teaching anywhere else. However, their previous educational experiences have largely ignored the spectrum of "What they actually need." I do what I can to rectify this...

I'm actually going to share your graphic with them in class tomorrow.

I'll also be writing an entry on this in my own blog, The State of Higher Education. Thank you for sharing!

Posted by: Dan | Nov 7, 2006 4:15:59 PM

I totally agree with you Kathy. People are trained to skim through text to look for an answer, but noone ever bothered to really teach them how to read. They teach them how to use arithmetic and geometry, but not how to come up with a logical decision. It's very depressing at times, but in my humble experience, those who exceed the general mediocrity are the ones that have surpassed this.

Posted by: saotome | Nov 7, 2006 7:19:43 PM

The insights in this thread are many. The egos and rants are even more. Long ago I realized a vast majority of the U.S. students of science, mathematics, and engineering (including myself) fall into two groups. Those who can design systems based on physics (like chipsets) yet remain fundamentalists (if G_d knows everything, how do you explain quantum theory?) and those who use systems (like Information or Systems Theory) based upon the role of emergence, synergy, or creativity who insist on seeing us as meat popsicles (if the universe is infinitely mechanistic, how do you explain Gödel’s impact on Hilbert’s Second Problem?).

The result is an influx of neo-schizophrenic scientists and engineers who can use the tools of the mind quite well but who ignore the mind (in the case of hard materialists) or trivialize the mind (in the case of fundamentalists).

So I dropped out of the race and try to live by Jimmy Stewart's immortal words:

Years ago, my mother used to say to me -- she'd say,
'In this world, Elwood, you must be --'
She always called me Elwood.
'In this world, Elwood, you must be
oh, so smart or oh, so pleasant.'
Well, for years I was smart.
I recommend pleasant.
And you may quote me.

Posted by: mark browne-middleton | Nov 8, 2006 8:26:39 AM

The article implies, and a commentor states explicitly that "there are things that cannot be taught and intuition is one of them."

I disagree. Not so long ago, intuition told everyone that heavier objects fall to the earth faster -- and why not, isn't it obvious that they should? They're heavier. Today, intuition tells most of us that, except in cases of extreme air resistance differences, all objects fall at the same rate.

My observation is that intuition is trained: trained by example, by experiment, and by hard mathematics. It wasn't intuitive to me ten years ago that a capacitor is a short circuit to high frequency variations in voltage and an open circuit to low frequency variations -- and yet, today, I don't have to think twice to have an intuitive grasp of the frequency-varying characteristics of such simple circuits.

Sure, not all people can learn all things to a level that allows them to claim "intuitive" understanding of new examples. Similarly, I'm willing to believe that some people are born with an above-average intuition about certain situations. But I see strong evidence that most things we claim an intuitive understanding about are the result of long (and sometimes intense) exposure to a wide variety of cases.

How does this play into our education system as a whole? Well, that's a bigger question - one that some day I hope has a shared answer, an answer updated for the world we now live in, a multicultural, highly engineered, fast-changing world. But I'm not prepared to fully address that question just yet!

Posted by: Paul | Nov 9, 2006 11:15:45 PM

Kathy's points are so true. A few years ago I returned to school to work on my Masters in Computer Science. This was at a good Engineering school (not ivy league, but certainly not a mediocre school). For fun, I took an undergraduate course in electronics from the EE department. I was shocked at how all the students would ask their questions when learning a new solution or equation: "How do I enter that into my calculator?" There was no concern for learning and understanding the underlying concept so it could be massaged and changed when a similar, but slightly different problem was encountered. No learning fundamental concepts; rather just memorizing key strokes on a calculator. That was their only concern. They were not even worried about what the underlying formula/equation was; just the key sequences please. Give them a different brand of calculator, and they would not be able to solve anything. It was rather sad to see. And people wonder why the US has lost its place as the technological powerhouse of the world.

Posted by: Mark | Nov 10, 2006 10:57:51 AM

ICT curricular integration is the key.

Posted by: Jose L. Cabello | Nov 11, 2006 10:52:02 AM

As a recent inaugural graduate of the very Olin College that Ryan referred to several posts up, I feel compelled to respond to this post because it hits so very close to home for me.

Olin was started to address very specifically the points that Kathy mentioned. Engineering is getting stagnant, graduates aren't as adaptable, etc. The goal was to create engineers who would be flexible enough to thrive in the kind of environments that we encounter today. To that end, we worked on building a curriculum encompassing engineering, entrepreneurship (in the sense of effecting change), and arts and humanities with design as a central element woven throughout all three.

The whole experience centers around team based proje