Teaching Fifth Graders Engineering

Jamie noticed a NYT story saying "To compete in a global economy, some school districts are offering engineering lessons to students in kindergarten. " The story is about 5th graders working on a new experimental curriculum that is well beyond the egg drop of old.

Comments

Parents are the Biggest Factor

[slifox]

It's great that schools are doing this, but I think parents are the biggest factor. Parents have a strong influence on the toys kids get at an early age, and at that early age children can show an interest in almost anything.

Want your kids to grow up with a healthy respect for / interest in engineering? Buy them Lego, Meccano (aka Erector Sets), K'Nex, etc... any toy that lets them play in a sandbox with minimal limitations, and particularly any toy that allows the creation of functioning mechanisms

Supplement this with some old hardware that they can take apart with only a screwdriver (and do it with them if they're too young to do it safely).

Computers and programming languages are also a great place to start, especially since the sandbox they provide allows easy experimentation (if you made an error, things don't blow up -- you can always reset and try again). However programming is arguably something that's best for slightly older children, whereas taking apart old mechanical/electrical hardware can be enjoyed by many children even as early as age 5 or before.

Of course this won't necessarily result in an engineer -- after all a child's interests can be largely determined by their personality, their school, and their social environment. However, by setting the foundations with these types of toys, your kid will at least have an understanding of engineering, which can only be beneficial. The fundamental point, I think, is that you can't just rely on schools -- as a parent you have to lay the foundations for learning (of any field or subject) at home, by spending time with your child and guiding them towards productive fun activities (and no, using the TV as a babysitter all the time will not accomplish this goal).

I'm not a parent yet, so I guess I'll see how well I do in this area when the time comes... However I do know what my parents did, and I think it worked pretty well

Re:Parents are the Biggest Factor

[NervousWreck]

Another thing parents can do to get their kids started on engineering: Science fiction. Thanks to science fiction I developed an interest in IT plus marketable skills in the same despite having little natural aptitude for it. Bruce Coville's AI gang trilogy led me to start learning Perl at age ten (admittedly it fell by the wayside until age 16, but still.)

Re:Parents are the Biggest Factor

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

You could adopt the alternate strategy, of forcing them to play with a "Child's First Call Center Playset: Now with over 500 recordings of angry, clueless, customers and verbally abusive managers!" for 14 hours a day.

This won't actually teach them anything; but it will fill them with a burning desire to acquire job skills.

Re:Parents are the Biggest Factor

[decipher_saint]

I heartily agree.

From my own history I see a direct result of this kind of early brain-building.

My family purchased a computer (Commodore 64) when I was about 7, my mom sat down and showed me how to write basic code just by going through the examples in the book that came with it. At first it was just an endless print loop with my name in it, but soon it became little "20 questions" type games and then more and more.

I have no doubt the reason I am a programmer today is because of the education and support from my family at an early age and also the encouragement to excel and keep exploring.

I also learnt quite a bit about basic electronics from those old Radio Shack kits.

Re:Parents are the Biggest Factor

[piles_of_spam]

I'm an engineer, and I am a parent of a 4 year old (soon to be 5) and one that's about to be 2. The 2 year old is really comfortable with 'Duplo' (the double size lego sets) as he doesn't have the coordination to manage small parts yet, and there's a choke hazard. The other thing that fits the 2 year old well is the wooden Thomas the train sets. We spend hours building elaborate track sets.

The 4 year old, on the other hand, is helping me to build a wooden spaceship for part of his space themed birthday party in July. He has his own hand tools, but I've also gotten him an electric screwdriver and a small set of hex base drill bits which he uses only under my supervision. It's really fun for me when he specifies design changes with the reason 'After all, daddy, it IS my spaceship.' The tricky part is keeping things moving fast enough to maintain his interest, but still promoting tenacity towards the goal of completing the project and making it cool.

I don't necessarily want to turn my sons into engineers. That would be fine, but I really want them to experience the value of concepts like 'work vs. reward', 'make your own fun', and especially 'turning your own imagination into reality'. No matter what they do, these concepts will take them somewhere. One thing I've learned is that my kids each have a compass needle. They gravitate towards natural abilities and interests, and I want to provide opportunities in those areas, but I also have to bolster the areas they don't naturally excel in.

Re:Parents are the Biggest Factor

[Rogerborg]

I'm an engineer, and I am a parent

Inconceivable!

For once, that word does mean what I think it means.

Re:Parents are the Biggest Factor

[Aladrin]

I got my start programming in school in 4th grade, but my parents stood behind that when I showed a strong interest. They bought me a (and my sister, fat lot she used it) Sinclair 1000. Then a Commodore 16, then C64.

Then I wanted a C128, but they refused. Somehow, despite knowing less about it than me, they realized that IBM-compatible was the future and forced me to pick out an IBM-compatible computer. They tell me I cried. lol But I did, and I made newbie mistakes, and I got better.

It's thanks to my school starting me down the path and my parents being willing to invest the time and money into it that I'm the happy programmer that I am today. Otherwise, I'd probably be some manager somewhere and hating my job and not knowing why.

I wish more schools would take the first step to introduce children to -all- the trades out there, including science, literature, music, computers and engineering. I firmly believe that more children would grow up with goals in life and be happier for it. If not goals, then at least skills they like and can turn into a career.

Nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing really new here. "Primitive" societies have involved children in engineering -- boatbuilding, weapons tech, housing construction, medicine, agriculture -- for millenia.

Re:He Huffed and he Puffed....

[jsnipy]

5th graders, not 5 year olds

Re:Here's the curriculum

[Chrisq]

1) Work harder than almost any other branch of schooling 2) Work for free on the evenings and weekends 3) Do things that no one cares about or appreciates 4) Life-long learning never stops, what about life? 5) Employment opportunities fall drastically after 35, you're too old 6) Watch engineering melt down and get exported to cheaper countries 7) Fuck it, go to law school

8) Profit by bringing dubiously generic and obvious patent cases against those daft enough still to be producing something for a living and who won't be able to afford to defend themselves in court.

Re:He Huffed and he Puffed....

[jsnipy]

I did Anonymous Coward; it's unlikely they will start with the more complicated concepts in kindergarten

Firecrackers

[srussia]

Obviously not something that would be done in school, but playing with firecrackers and other incendiary devices provided me with some engineering insights early on.

Sample objective: achieving maximum height of a projectile using an explosive propellant.

Lessons learned: 1) Use a seamless can (such as an empty butane canister), as normal cans would just blow apart. 2) Set canister in a basin of water to minimize energy loss, with firecracker suspended by the wick through a hole on top.

Results: A couple hundred meters altitude, incredibly low deviation from vertical.

Summary is confusing... had to read TFA

[mark-t]

(Damnit, what is slashdot coming to?)

Anyways.... fifth graders are not in kindergarten (or at least, they damn well shouldn't be!)

At least the article was a lot less confusing by saying they are teaching it to levels from kindergarten through grade 5.

No more one-off prototypes

[AmazinglySmooth]

Many people consider design of a one-off prototype as engineering, but often real engineering means creating something that can be manufactured, or creating something that can be very reliable, or creating something that can be made cheaply. I have met many PhD's in engineering that only prefer to make a single working prototype just like they did to get their "engineering" PhD. Sure, the technology is cool, but if the target application requires more than one, what good is it?

Re:No more one-off prototypes

[natehoy]

Sure, but one-off prototypes are what get kids fascinated in engineering.

The article talks of fifth-graders (in public school in the US, that translates to about 10-11 years old), at that age you're doing well to keep them interested long enough to complete a one-off and demonstrate that it works, especially in the modern world of passive consumption (TV, video games, etc) calling to them. Having them build a one-off out of Popsicle sticks, string, and duct tape that can lift a 2-pound brick will teach them a lot about material tensile strengths, reinforcement, planning, angles, etc. Most of all, it will teach them that this stuff is way cool, and they'll start experimenting. The ones who start experimenting and remain interested are the ones you choose for an engineering track.

I agree that any applied engineering track should include things like reusing available components whenever possible, emphasizing durability, thinking carefully about ongoing maintenance (eg. don't put consumable or frequently-replaced parts in inaccessible places or make them too hard to remove/repair/replace). I've purchased enough stupid shitty designs (proprietary connectors on digital cameras? In 2010? Really? Seriously?) to agree that you are correct - we need people thinking about cheap mass production, maintainability, and durability.

But an 11-year-old will be fully engaged when he/she has to build something to meet a specific goal. And that usually means a one-off. It's certainly appropriate to emphasize use of standard components (make them available) and to encourage durability in design (make it part of the goal).

By the time you reach a PHD, hopefully you've learned to make and refine designs that are reliable and based on cheaply-available components whenever possible. It's certainly a valid point, and the PHDs that stick purely to one-offs have either slept through some of the most important lessons or they were never offered by their classrooms. But for a 5th grader, you just want to get them thinking about engineering principles, and offer them enough information to explore and want to learn more.

"The mind is not a vessel to be filled. It is a fire to be kindled."
  - Plutarch

At 11 years old, we don't want an engineer. We want someone who is excited about engineering and wants to learn more. We want that kid who sets the butter on fire because he just knew he could fix that radio and didn't get the whole AC/DC thing. (OK, that was me, but you get the point, and I was about 12 at the time).

Re:No more one-off prototypes

[Nebulious]

By your definition, CERN is not a feat of engineering. Engineering, to me, is about systems. It's about taking many separate things making them function together to create something new. The purpose or application is moot. The real challenge of engineering is to account for the endless variables that can affect your product/system, from material properties to failure points. Engineering is the ability to weave the things and information you have to work with as seamlessly as possible. Yes, engineers make products. But they are also coders who work on simulations and so much more.

LEGO League

[ezratrumpet]

A particularly effective LEGO League coach, when handed a robot by erstwhile middle schoolers, proceeded to pull the robot horizonally. If it came apart, he handed the 'bot back to the team with two words: "Horizontal stresses."

If it held together, he nodded, then pulled the robot up and down. If it came apart, he handed the 'bot back to the team with two words: "Vertical stresses."

If the robot could handle stress, he asked to see what it could do on the scoring table.

He also made sure that there were cookies, sometimes, and drinks.

Good times, those.

Re:Do it Mythbuster Style!

[vlm]

also encourages them to be critical of pre-conceived ideas.

That is not going to fly in the bible belt.

Locally they call it the "Science Technology Engineering Math curriculum", often referred to locally as "The jobs that have gone to India curriculum" or the "future downsized/unemployed of America curriculum".

It seems like a cargo cult, perhaps if we just tried harder to indoctrinate our youth into textile work or manufacturing, then those jobs would have magically stayed onshore ... because, uh ... because we wished really hard.

Re:NICE!

[bickerdyke]

Hmm.. I think it was elemantary sodium you used for that....

Re:He Huffed and he Puffed....

[arth1]

... but he couldn't teach kindergartners the concept of load bearing supports. I like the idea, and I applaud the encouragement of sciences etc in school but kindergarten, really?

When people consider the kids ready for religion at kindergarten age, I don't see why they shouldn't be ready for science.

I call bullshit

[Hognoxious]

Fifth graders are far too soft and slippy to make anything useful out of.