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

[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

[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

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: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.