I apparently forgot to post this earlier, but here it is nevertheless...
The Layton article intrigued me. It seemed to focus almost if not entirely on engineering societies and their definitions of an engineer with specific regard to membership. Essentially the "lens" that he was using to view the definition of an engineer was that of professional societies.
It seems that membership requirements for professional engineering societies is orthogonal to whether or not an individual is considered an engineer. In particular, the fact that some try so hard to include managers who no longer practice engineeringFor a particular example, Layton continually discusses the fact that some societies tried to allow managerial counterparts into their society (individuals that presumably used to hold an engineering position).
The three chapters by Noble seemed to dance with the notion that engineers were at their heart businessmen. The lens he used was more industrial.
Gieryn's paper was particularly odd. He seemed to seriously struggle with the definition of science. I was perplexed by his difficulty in defining it, and establishing its boundaries.
Science is simple - it's the practice of the scientific method, which we all learned it in middle school if not grade school. For something to be considered scientific knowledge it has to be falsifiable, among other things.
I think the three papers combined start to unveil the actual boundaries and definition of an engineer. In that regard, a good set of readings.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Reflection on Charles Bonwell workshop about active learning strategies
Last week on September 30th a few people from our class (including myself) attended the workshop of Charles Bowell PhD, who is a National guru in active learning. There were about 70-80 people in the room. This workshop was the one of the best workshops I ever saw. The event was from 9am – noon, it is the reason why I was late for the half of the class. But I think it is a good idea to share some thought with the class. The author spoke about pros and cons of active learning strategies, which are an integral part of contemporary higher education.
Before this workshop I had some opinion about active learning strategies. I think the term “active learning” is not always appropriate. As a contrast to “active learning” many scholars called classical lectures as a “passive learning” or “passive listening”. First, I don’t understand how the learning can be “passive”. The method when an instructor asks students to work in groups, including different activities, might be effective enough, but I am against of “attacks” towards the lecture method. My impression is that there is a new paradigm in American higher education, which states that: “the active learning is better than lecture”. This fashionable conception is pushed to be employed by schools and many instructors are resistant to change. A range of researchers is trying to prove that “active learning is more effective”. But on the other hand, my question is: why the lectures are not effective anymore?
During the lecture, there is a direct transformation of information from the professor to the student. The main idea of this process (lecture) is: “do this, as I told you because ……it works”. I am making an analogy between the direct transformation of knowledge during the lecture and the relationship of master-pupil. When the master shows to the pupil how to perform the task, he presents to the pupil his knowledge/information and asks to accept it because the master is more experienced and has an authority.
As a contrast of lectures, working in groups, when the instructor employs the active learning techniques, first, students often asked to “guess” , and to learn through the guessing. It looks like: “I (the teacher) won’t tell you what is the first Newton law , you tell me first, or guess…and after you guess…I finally may explain you how the Newton law works… but better if you read this in the book, because I believe that you will learn better through the readings ……because I am the fan of active learning”. It is chaos.
How about (this usually occurs in “classical lecture”) : explain to students what the Newton law is and be sure they heard you and understood you.If a student wants to learn- he will learn, it does not matter what method is used by the instructor. But if the student does not have motivation to learn, nothing will help, even the “active learning” techniques.
My comments might give the wrong impression that I am against of active learning, but it is not true. I sincerely believe that those techniques (including work in groups and active participation in discussions) are extremely important. But the teaching methods and techniques have to be appropriate to the particular situation. If the class size is fewer than 50 people- the group work might be very effective. But in big class (e.g.150 people) when an instructor has to present fundamental theoretical knowledge (in science), working in groups will create extra noise, distraction and frustrations between students. Students won’t be able to get appropriate feedback from the teacher. In this situation, the lecture is probably the best method to transform knowledge to students. Another important point is - cultural backgrounds of students. In many countries (including my homeland), an instructor is still considered as an authority , it is very disrespectful to interrupt him/her during the lecture with “opinions”. If the student has a question, he should ask the teacher after the class or during the office hours.
During the Charles Bowell’s workshop (he is practicing active learning for years) I did not see this separation between “active” and “passive” learning, his teaching method was a very organized synthesis of both techniques: lecture and group work.
Further, I decided to summarize some material, which was presented in the workshop’s handout.
The major characteristics those are associated with the active learning:
1.Students are involved in more than passive listening;
2.Students are engaged in activities (e.g. reading, discussing, writing);
3.There is less emphasis placed on information transmission and greater emphasis placed on developing student skills;
4.There is greater emphasis placed on the exploration of attitudes and values;
5.Student motivation is increased (especially for adult learners);
6.Students can receive immediate feedback from their instructor;
7.Students are involved in higher order thinking (such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation).
The barriers, which prevent faculty from using active learning strategies:
1.You can not cover as much course content in the time available;
2.Devising active learning strategies takes too much pre-class preparation;
3.Large class sizes prevent implementation of active learning strategies;
4.Most instructor think of themselves as being good lectures;
5.There is a lack of materials or equipment needed to support active learning approaches;
6.Students resist non-lecture approaches;
7.The fact that using active learning strategies involves risk.
I guess it is enough for now, I can write about active learning more and more, but it is time to go to class……(before that I have to wake up kids and to drop them to babysitter)……See all of you in class………
Before this workshop I had some opinion about active learning strategies. I think the term “active learning” is not always appropriate. As a contrast to “active learning” many scholars called classical lectures as a “passive learning” or “passive listening”. First, I don’t understand how the learning can be “passive”. The method when an instructor asks students to work in groups, including different activities, might be effective enough, but I am against of “attacks” towards the lecture method. My impression is that there is a new paradigm in American higher education, which states that: “the active learning is better than lecture”. This fashionable conception is pushed to be employed by schools and many instructors are resistant to change. A range of researchers is trying to prove that “active learning is more effective”. But on the other hand, my question is: why the lectures are not effective anymore?
During the lecture, there is a direct transformation of information from the professor to the student. The main idea of this process (lecture) is: “do this, as I told you because ……it works”. I am making an analogy between the direct transformation of knowledge during the lecture and the relationship of master-pupil. When the master shows to the pupil how to perform the task, he presents to the pupil his knowledge/information and asks to accept it because the master is more experienced and has an authority.
As a contrast of lectures, working in groups, when the instructor employs the active learning techniques, first, students often asked to “guess” , and to learn through the guessing. It looks like: “I (the teacher) won’t tell you what is the first Newton law , you tell me first, or guess…and after you guess…I finally may explain you how the Newton law works… but better if you read this in the book, because I believe that you will learn better through the readings ……because I am the fan of active learning”. It is chaos.
How about (this usually occurs in “classical lecture”) : explain to students what the Newton law is and be sure they heard you and understood you.If a student wants to learn- he will learn, it does not matter what method is used by the instructor. But if the student does not have motivation to learn, nothing will help, even the “active learning” techniques.
My comments might give the wrong impression that I am against of active learning, but it is not true. I sincerely believe that those techniques (including work in groups and active participation in discussions) are extremely important. But the teaching methods and techniques have to be appropriate to the particular situation. If the class size is fewer than 50 people- the group work might be very effective. But in big class (e.g.150 people) when an instructor has to present fundamental theoretical knowledge (in science), working in groups will create extra noise, distraction and frustrations between students. Students won’t be able to get appropriate feedback from the teacher. In this situation, the lecture is probably the best method to transform knowledge to students. Another important point is - cultural backgrounds of students. In many countries (including my homeland), an instructor is still considered as an authority , it is very disrespectful to interrupt him/her during the lecture with “opinions”. If the student has a question, he should ask the teacher after the class or during the office hours.
During the Charles Bowell’s workshop (he is practicing active learning for years) I did not see this separation between “active” and “passive” learning, his teaching method was a very organized synthesis of both techniques: lecture and group work.
Further, I decided to summarize some material, which was presented in the workshop’s handout.
The major characteristics those are associated with the active learning:
1.Students are involved in more than passive listening;
2.Students are engaged in activities (e.g. reading, discussing, writing);
3.There is less emphasis placed on information transmission and greater emphasis placed on developing student skills;
4.There is greater emphasis placed on the exploration of attitudes and values;
5.Student motivation is increased (especially for adult learners);
6.Students can receive immediate feedback from their instructor;
7.Students are involved in higher order thinking (such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation).
The barriers, which prevent faculty from using active learning strategies:
1.You can not cover as much course content in the time available;
2.Devising active learning strategies takes too much pre-class preparation;
3.Large class sizes prevent implementation of active learning strategies;
4.Most instructor think of themselves as being good lectures;
5.There is a lack of materials or equipment needed to support active learning approaches;
6.Students resist non-lecture approaches;
7.The fact that using active learning strategies involves risk.
I guess it is enough for now, I can write about active learning more and more, but it is time to go to class……(before that I have to wake up kids and to drop them to babysitter)……See all of you in class………
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Ask an industrial engineer… they know about people
It seems that engineers would not put a boundary around engineering because to put a boundary around such a non-technical thing is not engineering, and thus is someone else’s job, possibly an industrial engineer’s. Well, at least that was largely an impression I got from professors in my undergraduate experience. Some other engineers would not state such a thing… like the ones in this class. Though, my previous professors would put us in a different category as well.
Looking at the boundary of engineering there is a few things that come to my mind. One is that when engineers are training for a problem set, they are told to state the boundaries. Putting the boundaries around a given problem, limits the scope of the problem. I had read one paper by Hauser-Kastenberg et. al (if you want the link ask and I will send) that was stating that engineering philosophy is rooted in Newtonian/Cartesian scientific model. That to problem solve in a way that creates boundaries and this results in unintended consequences, because important aspects of a problem are not included the boundaries. The authors gave the example of nuclear power. That the method of getting power had been in the scope of the ‘problem’ but what to do with the waste was not.
That engineers often are not looking at the whole space, especially not the social dimension of the space.
Within engineering education, students are often get told they can go off and do many other things with an engineering degree, but when students leave university with little writing and communication skills… really… they cant do much else. They still need to learn the other skills. Though they don’t learn it while in university because of so many other constraints… that I think are often made up by the engineering institutions. Professors will state an engineer NEEDS to know _____, with out it their degree will not be complete.
These boundaries on what professors believe are VERY important because they determine what is in the curriculum in engineering. And thus play a large role in defining what engineering is.
I think I am interested in finding the boundary with in that space. Engineering faculty distinguish themselves by discipline and by area of interests. I remember being told in undergrad… “you want to be interdisciplinary… you can get a minor in material science.” – they just don’t get it.
Looking at the boundary of engineering there is a few things that come to my mind. One is that when engineers are training for a problem set, they are told to state the boundaries. Putting the boundaries around a given problem, limits the scope of the problem. I had read one paper by Hauser-Kastenberg et. al (if you want the link ask and I will send) that was stating that engineering philosophy is rooted in Newtonian/Cartesian scientific model. That to problem solve in a way that creates boundaries and this results in unintended consequences, because important aspects of a problem are not included the boundaries. The authors gave the example of nuclear power. That the method of getting power had been in the scope of the ‘problem’ but what to do with the waste was not.
That engineers often are not looking at the whole space, especially not the social dimension of the space.
Within engineering education, students are often get told they can go off and do many other things with an engineering degree, but when students leave university with little writing and communication skills… really… they cant do much else. They still need to learn the other skills. Though they don’t learn it while in university because of so many other constraints… that I think are often made up by the engineering institutions. Professors will state an engineer NEEDS to know _____, with out it their degree will not be complete.
These boundaries on what professors believe are VERY important because they determine what is in the curriculum in engineering. And thus play a large role in defining what engineering is.
I think I am interested in finding the boundary with in that space. Engineering faculty distinguish themselves by discipline and by area of interests. I remember being told in undergrad… “you want to be interdisciplinary… you can get a minor in material science.” – they just don’t get it.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Who is grading whose papers?
Just for y'alls information, Alice is grading:
Robin is grading:
George will be constructively commenting on a few essays to give him the experience, and to give those folks another perspective. Talk with Alice or Robin if you have questions.
- Benjamin
- Hadi
- Diana
- Natalie
- Xin
- Xingyu
- Daniel
- Tatiana
- Lorie
- Elizabeth
- Tamecia
Robin is grading:
- Jeremi
- Oluwatosin
- Nichole
- Nikitha
- Corey
- Mariana
- Julia
- Jeffrey
- Evangelia
- Ruth
George will be constructively commenting on a few essays to give him the experience, and to give those folks another perspective. Talk with Alice or Robin if you have questions.
Belated guiding questions on Noble and Layton
I'm a bit late on getting you these questions, but here they are in any event in case you haven't gotten to your reading yet.
How do Noble and Layton *together* argue how the engineering profession evolved? What were the major signposts each used? What were the different historical steps? How has engineering as a "profession" evolved over time, as described by each?
Gieryn describes the boundary work that goes into the practice of science and technology, and outlines both the characteristics of boundary work itself and gives appetizers to his later chapters of various boundary work cases (which we won't read here, but I recommend you do read at some point, particularly the one on the NSF/NSSF). How might the tool of "boundaries" be helpful in thinking through Noble and Layton's histories of the engineering profession?
See you Thursday. We're beavering away on your essays...
How do Noble and Layton *together* argue how the engineering profession evolved? What were the major signposts each used? What were the different historical steps? How has engineering as a "profession" evolved over time, as described by each?
Gieryn describes the boundary work that goes into the practice of science and technology, and outlines both the characteristics of boundary work itself and gives appetizers to his later chapters of various boundary work cases (which we won't read here, but I recommend you do read at some point, particularly the one on the NSF/NSSF). How might the tool of "boundaries" be helpful in thinking through Noble and Layton's histories of the engineering profession?
See you Thursday. We're beavering away on your essays...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)