[tsaksa]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

Trent,

For the statics problem you mention in terms of material difficulty, there really isn't a good solution. I had a great statics teacher, many of the class did well, yet the average was still incredibly low for what I had been used to.

It's maybe 10% as difficult as higher level engineering classes (possibly not even that difficult), so making it easier or grading on a more substantial curve isn't an option.

I'm not saying this is what you proposed, but we can't solve the problem of fewer engineers by making engineering easier.

No, don’t make the content or grading any easier. None of us want to drive over a bridge that was designed by and approved by engineers that did not understand statics, but passed because most everyone else in their class was equally incompetent. However, we do want to provide an environment where that same difficult content is easier to learn.

The success rate for students in a particular class is not determined solely by the difficulty of the content. I have seen a lot of students do poorly in classes where the concepts and technical content were trivial compared to most engineering courses. I once had to take a class in cost accounting that seemed incredibly simple on the surface, but was so boring that I just could not focus. And it did not help that I could not see how I would ever want to apply any of what I was learning. I really struggled with that class. On the other hand I breezed through some classes that by comparison were much more technically challenging simply because I saw the value in understanding and applying what was being taught, and was highly motivated.

When students are motivated, difficult topics seem less challenging and doing the work required to do well is much less tedious. For some students, the challenge of taking a difficult class is motivation enough, and anyone would do well to learn a bit from these highly self motivated individuals. But for many of us there needs to be more. Perhaps they need a clear link to the real world, or a bit of fun. That is why I think FIRST is so great. It offers the kind of real world hands-on experience that often is exactly the thing many students need to encourage them over some of the difficult hurtles that exist in any STEMS program.

Today’s technology teachers have a difficult task before them. How do you motivate students who cannot see how what they are learning applies to the real world. And how do you even make those connections when the world itself is so much more complex and abstract today.

When I went to engineering school building and repairing things was already in my blood. I took things apart and repaired them or built them into new devices. I saw engineering skills as just another way to expand my skills. Being able to see the value of what I was learning is what I think helped me through some of the very challenging classes, and perhaps is why I never gave up.

But many students today do not have as much of those hands on skills. Building and repairing almost anything seems a bit like a lost art. In our throw away world there are fewer opportunities to learn those skills on your own. And with the complexity of many consumer devices today there are fewer role models for that type of behavior. Not too long ago, almost everyone I knew did some amount of appliance repair, electrical wiring, auto repair, or at least kit building at home. But, today most people do not bother to try, and many homes do not even have adequate tools and equipment to do so.

That is why I think FIRST has such resonance with many students and teachers today. Science can be fun. Difficult classes can be made more appealing. And boring topics can be made interesting by finding the right vehicle to bring the concepts to life. And, it would be hard to find a better vehicle than FIRST to do that for most STEMS courses.