I am pretty sure time has gone when women primarily learned how to replace a fuse and fix home appliances. However, it inspires me to think of another approach to ground engineering education in reality. I am so familiar with the top-down strategy where an instructor endeavor to find examples in real life to justify the value or necessity of the knowledge he just taught. This approach often sounds awkward because the instructor may not always find a perfect epitome. On the contrary, if engineering education starts from the other end - technology is the outcome of engineering - students will be more likely to naturally accept it. The example in Bix's book showed how excited the woman was when she repaired two appliances at home by applying the knowledge from the training. Both this problem based learning (bottom-up) and the top-down approach try to bridge the gap between scientific/engineering knowledge and reality but they start from different ends.
The origin of laboratory discussed in Slaton's book also evokes my reflection on the 'so-called lab' I attended in college. I was also greatly controlled in the lab at that time, but in the sense that instructions were clearly drafted by the instructor and even results were often predictable. The experiments were all out-dated and I never got a chance to operate a machine that would actually appear in the factories. This kind of control is completely different from what Slaton described in the book. As he mentioned, greater control of student work was necessary because lab must prepare students for all possible commercial applications. I was not a bit stimulated because neither the equipments nor methods would be applicable in my professional life. I do not know whether the modern lab setting in the U.S. retains the essence of the lab or also grows towards a wrong direction. As an engineering student, however, I would prefer a more practical experience in the lab session.
Showing posts with label Hanjun. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hanjun. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Classroom Observation Reflection
During my classroom observation, I intended to capture and record every activity of both the instructor, TA, and students. What impressed me most is the fact that group discussion and problem solving dominate the classroom while lecturing can hardly be noticed. Also, students show a strong inclination to use advanced technological infrastructure and dependency on computer tools.
Group Discussion
Students spent at least half of the class session in group discussion. Emphasis on group discussion echoes the need of teamwork in engineering disciplines. Some groups started to become well-structured where work division is very clear while most of them did not. Communication media varied significantly - some think aloud with plenty of gesture, emotion, and talking, whereas some worked individually with only occasional chatting and writing on paper. Both intra- and inter-group communications were allowed and welcomed. However, when a group is composed of students barely sharing any common, agreements cannot be easily achieved and very often voice of underrepresented members would be ignored. Also, the scale and difficulty of the topic for group discussion in this class were designed to be a bit beyond individual capacity but can be solved in groups within 15 minutes.
Problem Solving
Real-world problems preceded almost all exercises, quizzes, and lecturing. From simple programming tasks to lecturing on engineering estimation, real-world problems always come along with the content actually delivered. When the instructor started the topic Engineering Estimation, he chose an interesting problem ‘Why mice are harder than elephants to keep warm?’ and then transited to the surface area volume ratio. In this class, theories and principles appeared only when they are needed. Once they were introduced, students used them to solve a problem immediately. I think in this way, student may value knowledge higher and become more skillful in tackling real-world problem when they step into industry later. However, structure of knowledge looks more scatter and non-systematic, which requires extra efforts to link knowledge together.
Influence of Advanced Technology
The most impressive scene was that students complained and felt upset when they heard the problem must be solved by only pencil, paper, and calculator. Even so, some students insisted in programming on their laptops to get the result and hence they were warned once more by the instructor. This exercise took much longer than others where computer programs were allowed. Finally, only a few groups completed it. I think the emergence of advanced technology not only requires students to learn more but also transform the way of accessing knowledge.
Group Discussion
Students spent at least half of the class session in group discussion. Emphasis on group discussion echoes the need of teamwork in engineering disciplines. Some groups started to become well-structured where work division is very clear while most of them did not. Communication media varied significantly - some think aloud with plenty of gesture, emotion, and talking, whereas some worked individually with only occasional chatting and writing on paper. Both intra- and inter-group communications were allowed and welcomed. However, when a group is composed of students barely sharing any common, agreements cannot be easily achieved and very often voice of underrepresented members would be ignored. Also, the scale and difficulty of the topic for group discussion in this class were designed to be a bit beyond individual capacity but can be solved in groups within 15 minutes.
Problem Solving
Real-world problems preceded almost all exercises, quizzes, and lecturing. From simple programming tasks to lecturing on engineering estimation, real-world problems always come along with the content actually delivered. When the instructor started the topic Engineering Estimation, he chose an interesting problem ‘Why mice are harder than elephants to keep warm?’ and then transited to the surface area volume ratio. In this class, theories and principles appeared only when they are needed. Once they were introduced, students used them to solve a problem immediately. I think in this way, student may value knowledge higher and become more skillful in tackling real-world problem when they step into industry later. However, structure of knowledge looks more scatter and non-systematic, which requires extra efforts to link knowledge together.
Influence of Advanced Technology
The most impressive scene was that students complained and felt upset when they heard the problem must be solved by only pencil, paper, and calculator. Even so, some students insisted in programming on their laptops to get the result and hence they were warned once more by the instructor. This exercise took much longer than others where computer programs were allowed. Finally, only a few groups completed it. I think the emergence of advanced technology not only requires students to learn more but also transform the way of accessing knowledge.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Classroom observation
ENGR 195 by Dr. Brent Jesiek
Time: Oct 26, 2009 Mon. 9:30-11:30
Location: ARMS B098
Student #: 65
Time span observed: 2 hrs
Time: Oct 26, 2009 Mon. 9:30-11:30
Location: ARMS B098
Student #: 65
Time span observed: 2 hrs
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Too true to be justified?
What shocked me today in class is the fact that the design meeting and notebooks paper was rejected because the research result was straight-forward. Combining with Noah's so what question, I feel a huge discrepancy over the value of research among different people.
If a research is to invent X and prove X to be more effective under certain circumstances, it is valuable only when certain circumstances are somewhat common or typical. Researchers could convince others by answering the so what question. The same rule applies when a research concludes that X outperforms Y given Z. Both these two cases result in transformation of our current system to some extent. But when we come back to our first example, researchers seem to only reinforce our belief. In my opinion, such kind of researches may not be totally useless if:
(1) We just transited from another belief to the current one. Then reinforcement helps stabilize our drift.
(2) The research elaborate with the scope where the approach can applied, effectiveness under different circumstances, or guidelines to implement the approach.
(3) The research identifies the factors that make current belief prevalent, which implies that changes of these factors will undermine the validity of current belief.
BTW, if you guys were reviewers of this paper, would you reject it? What's your feedback then?
If a research is to invent X and prove X to be more effective under certain circumstances, it is valuable only when certain circumstances are somewhat common or typical. Researchers could convince others by answering the so what question. The same rule applies when a research concludes that X outperforms Y given Z. Both these two cases result in transformation of our current system to some extent. But when we come back to our first example, researchers seem to only reinforce our belief. In my opinion, such kind of researches may not be totally useless if:
(1) We just transited from another belief to the current one. Then reinforcement helps stabilize our drift.
(2) The research elaborate with the scope where the approach can applied, effectiveness under different circumstances, or guidelines to implement the approach.
(3) The research identifies the factors that make current belief prevalent, which implies that changes of these factors will undermine the validity of current belief.
BTW, if you guys were reviewers of this paper, would you reject it? What's your feedback then?
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Science of Design
I am really confused by this term. I can easily understand Scientific Design since the author analogize it to Operational Research. Design Science is also understandable when I replace Design with Physics, where we all learned a lot of laws and rules. But Science of Design?
According to what author said, the science of design is the study of design (principles, practices, and procedures). So does that means the science of design is an activity or process conducted in the scope of Design Science? In other words, the science of design is an effort and design science is a product. But I do feel I misinterpret these concepts somehow.
Could anyone share your thought and guide me through this?
According to what author said, the science of design is the study of design (principles, practices, and procedures). So does that means the science of design is an activity or process conducted in the scope of Design Science? In other words, the science of design is an effort and design science is a product. But I do feel I misinterpret these concepts somehow.
Could anyone share your thought and guide me through this?
Saturday, October 3, 2009
What is engineering? What is not engineering?
I agree with Noah that engineering should be defined more uniquely. When I need to strictly define the scope of X, I expect the definition to be so clear and unambiguous that everything in the world should either inside or outside X. No exception. So far, I don't think I can define engineering in this way.
"Is drawing engineering?" As raised by Sensen in class, I was also confused by such a question. But according to Koen's argument, engineering method is the strategy for causing the best change in a poorly understood situation within the available resources. Light changes. Fixed-size canvas. Artists try their best. The model may not pose the same all the time. Drawing shows all characteristics of engineering: change, resource, best and uncertainty. From my perspective, however, these four criteria serve as evidences rather than determinants to judge whether Y belongs to engineering. Koen may agree with me because he described these four words as characteristics of an engineering problem. Having Taken Bucciarelli's argument about social components of engineering, I am still not able to define engineering precisely. Do we really have such a definition?
Another question confusing me is that in Jonassen's paper, I lost connections between 12 themes and 6 implications for engineering educators. How can those 12 be matched to the 6 improvements?
"Is drawing engineering?" As raised by Sensen in class, I was also confused by such a question. But according to Koen's argument, engineering method is the strategy for causing the best change in a poorly understood situation within the available resources. Light changes. Fixed-size canvas. Artists try their best. The model may not pose the same all the time. Drawing shows all characteristics of engineering: change, resource, best and uncertainty. From my perspective, however, these four criteria serve as evidences rather than determinants to judge whether Y belongs to engineering. Koen may agree with me because he described these four words as characteristics of an engineering problem. Having Taken Bucciarelli's argument about social components of engineering, I am still not able to define engineering precisely. Do we really have such a definition?
Another question confusing me is that in Jonassen's paper, I lost connections between 12 themes and 6 implications for engineering educators. How can those 12 be matched to the 6 improvements?
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Challenges in classification
In Sorting Things Out, the author pointed out that 'No real-world working classification system that we have looked at meets these "simple" requirements...' That would strike me 2 weeks ago when I was working on my project where I need to seek for a perfect ontology for Engineering Education, but not now. I realized that I cannot classify ENE in such a way that it meets any of the three properties mentioned in this book. Instead, a quasi-perfect classification should be constructed so robustly that it well supports including, excluding, transiting of elements. Uncertainty and emergence of new elements keep deviating a real-world classification from Bowker's ideal model.
I have similar question with Sensen after reading Perry's Model. In my opinion, this verbalized Positions are far from standing as a classification. But maybe I am wrong because I used my quantitative head to make this judgment. Still, I am very interested in how this model can be applied to put students into positions correctly.
Thanks, Junaid, for sharing the 6-level learning in group discussion two weeks ago. So it's not a new concept to me any more. Also, I saw a few figures from Kolb Model somewhere before, but this article elaborates in greater depth which inspires me with the following question: while teaching in multi-disciplines can benefit from this model, would it also overstate the inter-discipline differences so that this preconceived guidance hinders the diversity and innovativity of both teaching and learning?
I have similar question with Sensen after reading Perry's Model. In my opinion, this verbalized Positions are far from standing as a classification. But maybe I am wrong because I used my quantitative head to make this judgment. Still, I am very interested in how this model can be applied to put students into positions correctly.
Thanks, Junaid, for sharing the 6-level learning in group discussion two weeks ago. So it's not a new concept to me any more. Also, I saw a few figures from Kolb Model somewhere before, but this article elaborates in greater depth which inspires me with the following question: while teaching in multi-disciplines can benefit from this model, would it also overstate the inter-discipline differences so that this preconceived guidance hinders the diversity and innovativity of both teaching and learning?
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Thoughts on Chap.5-7
About a year ago when I wrote a draft of literature review and asked my advisor for suggestions, he replied, "You can't make others' work all sound so useless - actually they are not - and meanwhile overestimate your own contributions." Stubbornness and arrogance turn many new researchers like me into a so-called "weak" sense critical thinker. But only since I read Paul's definition and classification of strong/weak sense thinking that I realize how necessary and valuable to become a strong one.
But I don't agree with McPeck about critical thinking cannot be taught in some general way. In my opinion, some critical thinking was born in an abstract level which should be taught in more general way and applied to more disciplines.
I love the way how Noddings stated the importance but hopelessness to seek for certainty, and how observation is sometimes not reliable and immediately becomes 'past-tense'. This argument coincides and reinforces the perspectives from Postmodernism we learned last time - we must compromise and step back to admit 'local truth'. I am also interested in coherence theories because there are a lot of conscious or unconscious 'event' in history being revised incorrectly in this way.
I can't image how fierce the debate between quantitative and qualitative research was then. Nor do I agree that they are incommensurable. The analogy of rational and irrational numbers does not reflect the same relation between quantitative and qualitative researches. They may use completely different approach, and base on their own theories, but there must be a certain point where they are connected and share the commons. For example, how can we draw the conclusion of "An apple a day keeps the doctor away."? We must start with an opening question: what keeps the doctor away? We may question those healthy elders and analyze their life styles. Hopefully, this qualitative research will eventually uncover that it is eating apple that keeps the doctor away. But how many apples should one eat? What kind of illness may apple be a precaution? Those are questions for quantitative research. Instead of debate, researchers from both parties should strengthen collaborations.
But I don't agree with McPeck about critical thinking cannot be taught in some general way. In my opinion, some critical thinking was born in an abstract level which should be taught in more general way and applied to more disciplines.
I love the way how Noddings stated the importance but hopelessness to seek for certainty, and how observation is sometimes not reliable and immediately becomes 'past-tense'. This argument coincides and reinforces the perspectives from Postmodernism we learned last time - we must compromise and step back to admit 'local truth'. I am also interested in coherence theories because there are a lot of conscious or unconscious 'event' in history being revised incorrectly in this way.
I can't image how fierce the debate between quantitative and qualitative research was then. Nor do I agree that they are incommensurable. The analogy of rational and irrational numbers does not reflect the same relation between quantitative and qualitative researches. They may use completely different approach, and base on their own theories, but there must be a certain point where they are connected and share the commons. For example, how can we draw the conclusion of "An apple a day keeps the doctor away."? We must start with an opening question: what keeps the doctor away? We may question those healthy elders and analyze their life styles. Hopefully, this qualitative research will eventually uncover that it is eating apple that keeps the doctor away. But how many apples should one eat? What kind of illness may apple be a precaution? Those are questions for quantitative research. Instead of debate, researchers from both parties should strengthen collaborations.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Noddings 1-4: from confused to less confused
First, I confess that chapter 4 annoyed me mainly due to my insufficient background knowledge in philosophy. Different philosophies share commons while fight against each other at some points, and they each proposed unprecedented ideas. Having an engineering brain, I find difficulties in accepting knowledge that is not logically organized.
However, I eventually figure out that it is me who fails to identify the implicit relations among diverse philosophies. Thanks to the big table in class, I am now more aware of the critical dispute and the mainstream of each philosophy. I am extremely amused by the 'buying and selling' analogy by Dewey. In my opinion, the comparison of merchant and teacher implies more responsibilities on teacher in that merchant has a direct and immediate feedback when a customer buys the product whereas teacher may not. Linking with the competition between Soviet and the U.S. in that era, it's not a surprise to see how many challenges came out towards this notion. I neither agree nor disagree Dewey's statement unless I know the precise role of teacher. It's not fair to scold a teacher if he/she is not responsible for assessment and hence not able to have feedback to improve his/her teaching.
I support the abandonment of the enlightenment quest for absolute truth in Postmodernism. Newton's Laws have a profound impact over the past few centuries. No one was going to oppose me 100 years ago if I announced that Newton's Laws were indubitable truths. But what about now when we have Relativity Theory? If we believe in a fixed one-truth concept in the world, we lose our sense of aim of education is growth/more education by Dewey as well. The existence of multiple truth may lead to discrepancy in our common basis. How to value the trade-off between growth/diversity of knowledge and the barriers posed by the discrepant local truths geologically and temporally?
BTW, I am reading an article in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that overlaps with some points in Noddings' book. In case someone else may also be interested, I post the link below. I found it easier to follow - at least for me :P
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/education-philosophy/
However, I eventually figure out that it is me who fails to identify the implicit relations among diverse philosophies. Thanks to the big table in class, I am now more aware of the critical dispute and the mainstream of each philosophy. I am extremely amused by the 'buying and selling' analogy by Dewey. In my opinion, the comparison of merchant and teacher implies more responsibilities on teacher in that merchant has a direct and immediate feedback when a customer buys the product whereas teacher may not. Linking with the competition between Soviet and the U.S. in that era, it's not a surprise to see how many challenges came out towards this notion. I neither agree nor disagree Dewey's statement unless I know the precise role of teacher. It's not fair to scold a teacher if he/she is not responsible for assessment and hence not able to have feedback to improve his/her teaching.
I support the abandonment of the enlightenment quest for absolute truth in Postmodernism. Newton's Laws have a profound impact over the past few centuries. No one was going to oppose me 100 years ago if I announced that Newton's Laws were indubitable truths. But what about now when we have Relativity Theory? If we believe in a fixed one-truth concept in the world, we lose our sense of aim of education is growth/more education by Dewey as well. The existence of multiple truth may lead to discrepancy in our common basis. How to value the trade-off between growth/diversity of knowledge and the barriers posed by the discrepant local truths geologically and temporally?
BTW, I am reading an article in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that overlaps with some points in Noddings' book. In case someone else may also be interested, I post the link below. I found it easier to follow - at least for me :P
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/education-philosophy/
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Off-class thought: share my stories
This is also my first time to join a group discussion. I enjoyed the moment when we shared our stories and experiences because I like watching movies. How can they be related? The primary reason why I like watching movies is that I can sense actors/actresses' feeling even if I don't have a chance to stand in the same situation in real life. In this way, their stories either arouse similar emotion from my own event or breathe wonderful expedition into my mind.
I was taught long time ago that everything is a double-edge sword. But one edge was getting blunt ever since I entered college to be trained as a technician. It's a world containing only bounded, charged, individual's voice and long-time meditation. No one is going to break the rule; no one feel the need to do so.
Two years later, I was shocked by a success and a failure when I tutored two high school students. They were of the same age, similar performance in school when I first started and I taught them almost at the same time with the same tone. I stayed humorous, brought in real-world object and phenomenon to explain the obscure formulas, and kept the course active. It worked out for the first student as he told me that he got 30% overall improvement in the exam. However, the second one started to hate me and finally he politely complained, "I don't care about your analogy and example. They will not show up in the exam. Just give me what the exam requires - a shortcut that helps to gain a ticket to college." So, was I doing wrong? Yes, because I failed to realize that teaching should put the right gear to fit the right machine. "But when my students refuse to dance with me, my strength turns to weakness." I do not agree with the attitude and motivation of the second student, but I feel guilty, really.
I suddenly find out my paragraph above is a reflection-on-action. What a surprise! We talked a lot on knowing-in-action and reflection-in/on-action in class but I am especially interested in "reflective transfer" - carrying practice over into new situations. I smelt it last weekend when I was moving to a new apartment. Since I have no license, I rent a U-Haul and asked my friend to help me drive.
"No, I can't."
"Why? You have a license and you drive your Camry every day. Do you mean different licenses are issued to different vehicle drivers?"
"Yes, but I am allowed to drive a U-Haul of this size. But eh...it's different."
Finally I ended up finding another friend who owned a pick-up.
I am also amused by the MIT project. I used to develop an application like 'program A' which turned out to be a total failure. My application is to pick up every two documents which actually come from students' homework, extract main content out of it, and compare them to see if there is any plagiarism. Of course the student disliked it. But the instructor also hated because the students always figured out tricks to crash my application or simply protected their documents from being inspected by my program. Unfortunately, that's exactly the project for my B.S. degree :(
Sorry guys, it's a long post. But some directors mean to make movies longer, right? Oh, by the way, I watched 'Uninvited' last week but it made me drowsy ! 
I was taught long time ago that everything is a double-edge sword. But one edge was getting blunt ever since I entered college to be trained as a technician. It's a world containing only bounded, charged, individual's voice and long-time meditation. No one is going to break the rule; no one feel the need to do so.
Two years later, I was shocked by a success and a failure when I tutored two high school students. They were of the same age, similar performance in school when I first started and I taught them almost at the same time with the same tone. I stayed humorous, brought in real-world object and phenomenon to explain the obscure formulas, and kept the course active. It worked out for the first student as he told me that he got 30% overall improvement in the exam. However, the second one started to hate me and finally he politely complained, "I don't care about your analogy and example. They will not show up in the exam. Just give me what the exam requires - a shortcut that helps to gain a ticket to college." So, was I doing wrong? Yes, because I failed to realize that teaching should put the right gear to fit the right machine. "But when my students refuse to dance with me, my strength turns to weakness." I do not agree with the attitude and motivation of the second student, but I feel guilty, really.
I suddenly find out my paragraph above is a reflection-on-action. What a surprise! We talked a lot on knowing-in-action and reflection-in/on-action in class but I am especially interested in "reflective transfer" - carrying practice over into new situations. I smelt it last weekend when I was moving to a new apartment. Since I have no license, I rent a U-Haul and asked my friend to help me drive.
"No, I can't."
"Why? You have a license and you drive your Camry every day. Do you mean different licenses are issued to different vehicle drivers?"
"Yes, but I am allowed to drive a U-Haul of this size. But eh...it's different."
Finally I ended up finding another friend who owned a pick-up.
I am also amused by the MIT project. I used to develop an application like 'program A' which turned out to be a total failure. My application is to pick up every two documents which actually come from students' homework, extract main content out of it, and compare them to see if there is any plagiarism. Of course the student disliked it. But the instructor also hated because the students always figured out tricks to crash my application or simply protected their documents from being inspected by my program. Unfortunately, that's exactly the project for my B.S. degree :(
Sorry guys, it's a long post. But some directors mean to make movies longer, right? Oh, by the way, I watched 'Uninvited'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
