The educational trend of replacing laboratory experience with less expensive computer simulation has consequences. Despite having strong computer skills, many students lack physical insight and jump to numerical solutions often disjointed from reality. Students often prefer “plug and chug” problems that have specific numerical solutions, as opposed to practical, open-ended, design-oriented problems. In many undergraduate programs, engineering students are trained to be applied mathematicians with sharp computer skills. Courses generally emphasize theoretical development (i.e., engineering science vs. engineering) and are “top-heavy” toward mathematical concepts as opposed to real-world applications. As a result, graduating students entering engineering practice are expected to apply their engineering education to real-world problems, yet many feel ill-prepared to undertake this challenge.

Students are often lost in the “trees” of mathematical details and do not see the engineering “forest.” Their devotion to a unique and exact numerical result camouflages a complete understanding of the physical significance. It also hides tradeoff issues as well as the imperfect nature of reality. As a result, students can arrive at unrealistic solutions to physical problems, without recognizing that their solutions may be impossible or infeasible to implement. The trend of divorcing the physical reality from the mathematics translates into “front-line” engineers who are not prepared to tackle the real-world problems of industry. Feedback from industry is that the engineering degree is not “what it once was” and, consequently, industry bears the burden of preparing entry-level engineers for project work. Given today’s rapid advances in technology, outsourcing of R&D, and globalization of markets, universities have an obligation to train students to be both “thinkers” (information rich) and “doers” (application savvy).

In education, physical systems must be emphasized at all stages in our courses. There are definite pedagogical advantages to teach engineering with actual physical systems, as opposed to seemingly random sets of mathematical equations or computer simulations (despite the attraction of the virtual world). The challenge is to balance macro-level perspectives, that develop physical insight, with micro-level perspectives, that address specific details. In teaching undergraduate engineering courses, my belief is that it is best to approach physical design problems armed with an integrated combination of tools but always connected to the physical system. This means relying heavily on laboratory experiments supported by computer simulation and analysis, highlighting the advantages of different methods of investigation and drawing insight from the richness of different perspectives.

To help equip students so they can better tackle real-world problems upon graduation, my teaching philosophy has been to provide meaningful opportunities for students through laboratory experiences. My goal is to build on the structure and simplicity of textbook presentations with the unstructured nature and complexity of real-world hands-on experiences.

back