City College of New York School of Engineering

Mechanical Engineering Department

Spring-2014

Mechanical Engineering I 6500: Computer-Aided Design Instructor : Prof. Gary Benenson

Student : Mehmet Bariskan

Interpretive Paper #2 : What is the biggest mistake in

engineering education?

2

This report comprises some of my notes and thoughts after reading two articles. The first article,

titled “Teaching Engineering, Psychological Type and Learning” by Wankat & Orevicz. And the

second article, titled “Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education” by Richard M.

Felder and Linda K. Silverman.

Engineering education is the activity of teaching knowledge and principles related to the

professional practice of engineering. Engineers profile may be conveniently explained in terms

of three components. Their knowledge, the facts they know and concepts they understand. The

skills they use in managing and applying their knowledge, such as computation,

experimentation, analysis, design, evaluation, communication, leadership, teamwork and

judgment. The attitudes that dictate the goals toward which their skills and knowledge will be

directed, such as personal values, concerns, preferences and biases.

When we try to examine the way to be a successful engineer. We should consider first, how we

need to educate them. The knowledge is the database of a professional engineer; skills are the

tools used to manipulate the knowledge in order to meet a goal strongly influenced by the

attitudes. Wankat & Oreovicz explain the attitudes in their article “Teaching Engineering.” As

quoted from the article, “Jung postulated that everyone has a basic orientation to the world which

indicates the direction in which energies or interests flow: to the outer world of people and

events (extroversion, E) or to the inner world of ideas (introversion, I). He referred to this as an

attitude toward the world.” The professors have to consider these two aspects of the interests

flow while teaching to the individuals. Students are different, and their attitudes of learning may

be different from each other. In their article, they say, “Extroversion or Introversion type, in the

conscious aspects of life, processes information either through the senses (S) or by intuition (N)

and makes decisions on the basis of this information either by logical, impersonal analysis

(thinking, T), or on the basis of personal, subjective values (feeling, F).” Their research shows

us, 53 percent of engineering student population using their sense ability versus 47 percent of the

engineering student population using their intuition ability. As McCaulley (1987) points out, “S

and N types approach problems from opposite directions. S moves from specific to general; N

types approach problems from opposite directions.” I have been recognized the same opposite

behavior in my undergraduate years from my classmates. When our professor was using the

deductive method; my half of the classmates was eager to learn then the other half or when the

professor had chosen the inductive method, the other half was eager to learn than the first half. I

3

have been questioned myself since we cannot change the chemistry of the people. “Why are we

not dividing our class to two different departments according to the student’s ability?” In my

opinion, this is the first mistake in our engineering education. If, the students learn in different

ways. If, the faculty teaches one way. This education is just a favor some types over others.

Richard M. Felder explains the Inductive and deductive learners in his article, titled “Learning

and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education.” As quoted from the article, “Induction is the

natural human learning style. Babies do not come into life with a set of general principles”, and

“Deduction is the natural human teaching style, at least for technical subjects at the college level.

Stating the governing principles and working down to the applications is an efficient and elegant

way to organize and present material that is already understood. Consequently, most engineering

curricula are laid out along deductive lines, beginning with the fundamentals.” In his article,

there is a survey. They asked a group of engineering professors to identify their own learning and

teaching styles: half of the professors identified themselves as inductive and half as deductive

learners, but all agreed that their teaching was almost purely deductive. After reading this part of

the article, I have asked the same question myself again, “Why are we not dividing our classes?”

Even the half of the professors are identified themselves in one group of learners while the other

half of the professors are identified in the other group of learners.

My second question was how to teach both deductive and inductive learners since there are no

separated classes in the education system. As quoted from the article, “An effective way to reach

both groups is to follow the scientific method in classroom presentations: first induction, then

deduction. The instructor precedes presentations of theoretical material with a statement of

observable phenomena that the theory will explain or of a physical problem the theory will be

used to solve; infers the governing rules or principles that explain observed phenomena; and

deduces other implications and consequences of the inferred principles. Perhaps most important,

some homework problems should be assigned that present phenomena and ask for the underlying

rules.” Even, I don’t agree to teach the different types of students with one way or both ways

mixed. Using the both method inductive and deductive type of teaching should be the best way

when I consider using one of them. In this course, we have seen both methods that applied by the

instructor. We had a chance to see observable phenomena such as a basic sponge or a real object

of a pulley, and then we have tried to understand the theory of the physical problem the theory

had been used to solve, make sense out of the governing rules that explain observed phenomena.

4

We have also been given homework problems that targeted to underlying some rules that we are

taught in the classroom.

As I have explained above, my first opinion about the biggest mistake in engineering education

is to teach all engineering students with the same way. When we consider to verbal and

numerical type of students, we have a different type of majors to choose. Why don’t we have the

same thought in the same course? We need to start to think to separate our classes according the

students’ learning ability. I have three instructors in my whole student life. They were trying to

teach with both methods inductive and deductive types. Consequently, the majority of the class

had a “feeling” that they learn most things from the class, then the other classes’ end of the

semester. Unfortunately, my other professors had canalized me to solve the problems and get a

good grade for the classes. Memorizing the same type of problems were enough to pass the class.

They were not even bothering themselves about the learning and teaching styles.