The argument against turn-key, out of the box engineering curricula

I should preface this post by saying that all of the pre-made engineering curricula out there are excellent; they were all put together with educators and engineers, subject matter and teaching experts from around the country. If you can afford to implement any of them, I suggest you do it. I have the Amatrol system, which I inherited when I came here. However, I'm going to make the case that these are unnecessary if you have the right mindset, dedicated teachers, and a few good ideas.

The first point I would like to make is against the necessity of the off-the-shelf curricula. Before any of these curricula existed, engineering still was taught. The Brooklyn Bridge, Empire State Building, and Transcontinental Railroad were still designed, built, and are performing admirably. I do agree, however, with the strides that the curricula have made to get engineering education in to the middle and elementary grades, but I disagree with the fact that they are motivating more students to study engineering. As the population has grown in the last fifty or so years, the number of students pursuing engineering majors per capita has actually decreased in the last 20 years. I think that the introduction of these plug-in curricula was a reaction to this trend, not a proactive step for the future.

The next point is concerning the cost. As with many other areas of education, prices for textbooks and other curriculum materials are quite high, and many schools find that they have teachers and students that would benefit from a technology program only to find out that they cannot afford to implement it in their schools. This is especially true with engineering and technology curricula, which is comprised of multiple trainers and electronic components, all needing their own computers. This argument lends itself to a haves vs. have nots issue. Schools in lower-income areas (both rural and urban) do not have access to the necessary funding. Any student should have access to an solid pre-engineering foundation.

One other problem that I have seen with engineering curricula, although I understand that it has a place, is what I call the "whiz-bang" effect. The whiz-bang effect happens when you take a group of students and teach them only the fun things: rockets, bridges, catapults, etc. without engaging them in the behind-the-scenes math and physics that makes them work, or the effects of those different technologies on societies. It's easy to fall into this trap, as I've done myself. It's easy to teach students when they are doing something they enjoy. But sometimes, as a teacher, you need to make sure the students understand the reasons they are doing what they are doing. The turn-key curricula are getting better in this regard, but it takes a strong teacher to actually put it to practice in the classroom. I've seen more than a few teachers just "skip" the math parts because "It's just so hard to get the students to do it." This also present problems down the road. Students sometimes think that engineering is all fun and projects. When they get to college and have to explore engineering design to its full depth, they hate it and want to quit. They didn't know what was coming.

Teachers can make up for a lack of specialized equipment by using their imaginations. Almost any object can be used to teach engineering principles. All objects have material properties, and can be combined to build structures, apparatuses, testing equipment, and other things. I'm talking about any objects: paper, pencils, paper clips, rubber bands, and other things you have laying around your classroom. This also helps with the cost issue. Like I said before, I have a bridge-testing machine, but I prefer to just put the bridge between two tables and hang weights from it.

As I wrote at the beginning of this post, I don't want to turn anyone off of using a pre-built curriculum if you can afford it; I just want it to be known that you shouldn't feel discouraged if you can't. It just takes a little more work.

Of course, we're used to a little extra work. That's why we're teachers.

TTFN