The other day someone asked me what this blog was all about. The description in the heading gives the general range of coverage, but for those of you who have been here before know my recurring themes. Here is just a quick summary for some of you who are new to this blog.
Low Enrollment Problem
This has been going on for years for multiple reasons that are too complex to summarize here. Dig through the blog for lots on info on this subject. But in general, enrollments in electronics technology in 2-year community colleges have been on the down swing for years. Many of you are still suffering with this problem and some of you actually had your departments closed, downsized or merged simply for lack of students. This problem continues although in some parts of the country there are signs of recovery. As I keep saying, this is more of a local problem than a national problem, but the trend is cerainly national in scope.
Despite the low enrollments, the jobs for technicians are still out there. In their annual report, the American Electronics Association (AeA) indicated plenty of tech jobs and many that go unfilled simply there are not enough engineers and technicians are being graduated. And these jobs pay significantly better than the average job today. We just can't seem to interest young people to learn electronics. No one seems to know why.
Anyway, I am happy to report that at the school where I teach as an adjunct, enrollments are up after four seriously distraous years of declines and cut backs. The department worked hard to revise and update the curriculum and add new majors such as biomed and electrical power. I see signs here and there that some programs are coming back as enrollments gradually turn around.
Just keep working to update courses and curricula to reflect the jobs available today and work with local industry. And do try to promote the programs by whatever means.
Textbooks
The main publishers McGraw Hill, Delmar and Prentice Hall produce very high quality texts but they are still dated. The NSF grant I helped win a few years back was awarded based on that fact. To help solve the problem, which the publishers seem unwilling to address, we developed 25 online tutorials on topics that are relevent today but that are not covered in textbooks or receive mininal or dated coverage. This program has been a huge success as it provides the latest material that instructors can use supplement the dated texts.
The problem actually lies less with the publishers and more with the authors and those who adopt a book. Instructors tend to lack current industry experience and up to date technical knowledge. Yet these are the people who write the books. No wonder the books are dated.
Unlike most authors, I work in industry and keep right on top on all the latest developments as well as what is current and relevant and what is not. I wish we could get more industry people to write the books but I don't see that happening.
What publishers could do is get industry input through a panel of experts or at least reviewers who can say what is hot and what is not.
Publishers are still reluctant to change too drastically as all the older instructors want to keep teaching the material they are familiar with but may not be relevant today. I have been told by my publisher that I could not take out the old and dated material simply because the reviewers say they want it. Boy, what a problem. And the publishers, wanting to sell their books, do what their customers say, keep the old and dated and leave out the new and relevant stuff. I only hope you instructors reading this will reconsider. You need the books to be as up to date as possible. Give in to change and constant new developments that are an inherent part of electronics.
Teach Techs to Be Techs
So many, if not most instructors have EE degrees. Few actually have Technology degrees which I have come to believe are far better suited to teaching in a technology program. EE degreed instructors tend to teach what they learned in college which is engineering. Engineers analyze and design. But Techs do not. Yet, that is the way most instructors want to teach the subject. Furthermore, most instructors have never even worked as a technician. How can they really know what it is like? And certainly how it has changed so drastically over the years.
The curriculum, books and courses need to be reoriented to teach techs and about the jobs they do today. Engineering tech jobs have all but gone away and it is rediculious to keep teaching subjects that were irrelevant even a few years ago. I urge you all to go out and find out what the tech jobs are today and figure out just what you need to teach. Some of what you teach now is still valid but so much of it is not. You need to teach more systems and less circuits level material. Less math analysis and design and more practical testing, measuring and troubleshooting. And that is not what most of you guys want to hear.
You can find out more detail on all of the topics I listed here by just browsing the proeious entries and the responses.
And please feel free to chime right in here if you agree or disagree.
Thanks for listening.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Friday, May 04, 2007
Change is Hell
I am just wrapping up a Digital Fundamentals course I taught this semester at the community college where I used to be department head. As some of you may know, I left in 2000 to go back to industry simply because of the frustration with academia in general and the delusional practices that keep the curriculum and courses in the last century. I still like to teach so do so occasionally as an adjunct. It gives me a chance to practice what I preach here. Sometimes it is possible to do more good from outside than inside. And it provides me a solid excuse for not having to say "do as I say not as I do". If you get my drift. I do practice what I preach. But I can truthfully say that it is, to coin another phrase, easier said than done. Anyway, this piece is dedicated to all of you guys and gals who are trying hard to update the program to reflect what techs do in industry today and what they REALLY need to know.
First let me say that over the past few years, the college has chosen to make Digital Fundamentals one of those courses that requires few if any prerequisites. While I was department head, a student had to have completed DC, AC and a Solid State Circuits course. Today the prerequisite is DC and College Algebra. What that means is that students come into this course with just some basic DC theory and nothing else. They do not know how a transistor works, or basic circuit concepts. I wasn't really prepared for this.
Yes, I know why the college did this. It is tough to squeeze in all the courses into a four semester, 2-year program so you have to double up on some and make the prerequisites looser. And I also know that you can indeed teach digital without circuit knowledge by just teaching the logic functions and applications. Yet as I have discovered, it leaves the student with a very liminted and somewhat warped view of the digital world. It is tough to present some material especially like how logic gates work, the source and issues regarding propagation delay, rise/fall times, and 3-state logic just to name a few. Very awkward to say the least. But I managed to get through it. But I have a very uneasy feeling that the students got a watered down, or as some of you like to say, dumbed down version of what it really should be. I hate that feelilng. If I had my way, I would juggle things to make sure the courses are set up as they used to be with more relevant prerequisites.
In looking at what techs do today, I have been able to juggle the subject matter to make sure the student gets what is needed. And I can question some of the traditional material to see if it is still relevant. You are probably saying who the devil am I to say that I know what is needed? Easy, I work in industry in a job that lets me clearly see a wide range of tech jobs and what the duties are. It is not like it used to be, believe you me. For example, there are few if any engineering tech jobs left. They are just not needed today given the heavy use of ICs and software design. Most techs install, service, repair, maintain, operated, troubleshoot, test, measure, calibrate, and otherwise take care of electronic equipment. They do NOT analyze or design. That makes some of the subjects we used to teach borderline at best.
Take Boolean circuit minimization and Karnaugh maps for instance. Do we really need to teach that? Techs don't design digital circuits anyway so why bother? Even engineers rarely use manual minimization methods much less Karnaugh maps. It is all done with software today.
This is one of those decision points in updating a course that we all face. This is the "hell" I referred to in the title. My decision was more or less made for me as the state requirements for this course said I should teach Boolean and Karnaugh. So I did. I couldn't legally take it out even if it were the most obsolete procedure in the world. And that really points up a key factor. What the devil do state governments have to do with setting content standards anyway? I suppose for transferrability purposes between state colleges. But, there is no provision for changing or updating these requirements. So the dated and irrelevant material is perpetuated eternally.
Anyway, the state guidelines don't say to what degree each subject has to be taught so I did the bare minimum. At least the students know the procedures and why and when you use them but they are not experts. That level of coverage is about right. And the student goes away with the vocabulary and familiarity with these subjects without really being competent. Just as it probably should be. Now if we can get the textbook authors and publishers to adjust the coverage to better fit the real world.
By the way, I had one instructor tell me, Lou how could you take out that part of the subject matter that is the most fun to teach? Most fun? What that really says is that teachers teach what they know and like and not necessarily what is really needed. But I should be fair and say that most of those instructors are living in denial anyway since the do not have a clue what is important today and not.
The biggest problem I had with this course was the lab. We used to use basic breadboard trainers and TTL ICs to teach digital and I bet most of you still do. Yet, when was the last time you saw an electronic product made with lots of TTL chips? Not for a long time. The way digital circuits are realized today are with embedded controllers and programmable logic devices (PLDs). You can still get TTL (and CMOS) SSI and MSI chips but few if any find their way into new designs. Yet this is what the student learns. Well, not the circuit details becasue they don't know what a transistor is at this point. Another disturbing issue to deal with.
My decision was more practical than relevant. I resorted to using the old breadboard trainers and TTL chips simply nothing else was available. How does one teach a digital lab anyway? I felt bad about this but what else could I do given the time and budget constraints? At least the students learned the logic and got to play around with the various circuits.
Did I teach PLDs? Definitely. I introduced them but did not venture too much into their actual programming even though the college recently invested in the latest Altera FPGA development boards and software. Such an advance device is over kill for a fundamentals course and a huge amount of time is required to learn the programming language and hardware. And what I see in industry is that techs do not design with or program FPGAs or any other PLD. Techs have to know what they are and how they work but not the details of design and programming. That's not just my opinion, it is fact.
One of the professors at the college has reworked his digital labs to completely eliminate the old TTL and trainers and implements all experiments on the Altera FPGA, even the basic gates and flip flop labs. I give him credit for making such an effort to use the latest technology. I wish more professors were willing to learn the latest hardware and incorporate it into their courses. But I feel he went too far. The poor students come into his course with DC under their belt and they immediately start learning the software. Their heads are spinning. I had 5 students in my class who had previously dropped out of this professor's class just because it was too much for them.
Incidentally, I spoke with 5 other instructors teaching digital this semester about what they taught and how. (Yes, 5 other instructors, 3 full time faculty and 2 other adjuncts besides me. Enrollments are really up at the college this semester so lots of teachers were needed, just like the olden days.) Every one of us teachs digital in a different way. Academic freedom and all that. But the variations are so great it got me to worrying about consistency in content. There doesn't seem to be any way to be sure the student comes away with all the basic needs. Instructors do just what they want to do and not so much what they should do. And each one has the same attitude: "What are you going to do, fire me?" You get the picture.
Change is indeed hell. The colleges, the curricula, the courses, the labs, the textbooks and so on are still partly stuck in the past but slowly moving to the future. A real mixed bag. It is a miracle that students graduate with what they need. EE trained instructors are still trying to teach engineering to techs who won't ever do it in real life and will feel disappointed in their tech jobs because their bosses tell them they are not engineers. Fine state of affairs.
Keep plugging away at your courses and curricula to bring them up to date. I feel your pain.
Lou Frenzel
First let me say that over the past few years, the college has chosen to make Digital Fundamentals one of those courses that requires few if any prerequisites. While I was department head, a student had to have completed DC, AC and a Solid State Circuits course. Today the prerequisite is DC and College Algebra. What that means is that students come into this course with just some basic DC theory and nothing else. They do not know how a transistor works, or basic circuit concepts. I wasn't really prepared for this.
Yes, I know why the college did this. It is tough to squeeze in all the courses into a four semester, 2-year program so you have to double up on some and make the prerequisites looser. And I also know that you can indeed teach digital without circuit knowledge by just teaching the logic functions and applications. Yet as I have discovered, it leaves the student with a very liminted and somewhat warped view of the digital world. It is tough to present some material especially like how logic gates work, the source and issues regarding propagation delay, rise/fall times, and 3-state logic just to name a few. Very awkward to say the least. But I managed to get through it. But I have a very uneasy feeling that the students got a watered down, or as some of you like to say, dumbed down version of what it really should be. I hate that feelilng. If I had my way, I would juggle things to make sure the courses are set up as they used to be with more relevant prerequisites.
In looking at what techs do today, I have been able to juggle the subject matter to make sure the student gets what is needed. And I can question some of the traditional material to see if it is still relevant. You are probably saying who the devil am I to say that I know what is needed? Easy, I work in industry in a job that lets me clearly see a wide range of tech jobs and what the duties are. It is not like it used to be, believe you me. For example, there are few if any engineering tech jobs left. They are just not needed today given the heavy use of ICs and software design. Most techs install, service, repair, maintain, operated, troubleshoot, test, measure, calibrate, and otherwise take care of electronic equipment. They do NOT analyze or design. That makes some of the subjects we used to teach borderline at best.
Take Boolean circuit minimization and Karnaugh maps for instance. Do we really need to teach that? Techs don't design digital circuits anyway so why bother? Even engineers rarely use manual minimization methods much less Karnaugh maps. It is all done with software today.
This is one of those decision points in updating a course that we all face. This is the "hell" I referred to in the title. My decision was more or less made for me as the state requirements for this course said I should teach Boolean and Karnaugh. So I did. I couldn't legally take it out even if it were the most obsolete procedure in the world. And that really points up a key factor. What the devil do state governments have to do with setting content standards anyway? I suppose for transferrability purposes between state colleges. But, there is no provision for changing or updating these requirements. So the dated and irrelevant material is perpetuated eternally.
Anyway, the state guidelines don't say to what degree each subject has to be taught so I did the bare minimum. At least the students know the procedures and why and when you use them but they are not experts. That level of coverage is about right. And the student goes away with the vocabulary and familiarity with these subjects without really being competent. Just as it probably should be. Now if we can get the textbook authors and publishers to adjust the coverage to better fit the real world.
By the way, I had one instructor tell me, Lou how could you take out that part of the subject matter that is the most fun to teach? Most fun? What that really says is that teachers teach what they know and like and not necessarily what is really needed. But I should be fair and say that most of those instructors are living in denial anyway since the do not have a clue what is important today and not.
The biggest problem I had with this course was the lab. We used to use basic breadboard trainers and TTL ICs to teach digital and I bet most of you still do. Yet, when was the last time you saw an electronic product made with lots of TTL chips? Not for a long time. The way digital circuits are realized today are with embedded controllers and programmable logic devices (PLDs). You can still get TTL (and CMOS) SSI and MSI chips but few if any find their way into new designs. Yet this is what the student learns. Well, not the circuit details becasue they don't know what a transistor is at this point. Another disturbing issue to deal with.
My decision was more practical than relevant. I resorted to using the old breadboard trainers and TTL chips simply nothing else was available. How does one teach a digital lab anyway? I felt bad about this but what else could I do given the time and budget constraints? At least the students learned the logic and got to play around with the various circuits.
Did I teach PLDs? Definitely. I introduced them but did not venture too much into their actual programming even though the college recently invested in the latest Altera FPGA development boards and software. Such an advance device is over kill for a fundamentals course and a huge amount of time is required to learn the programming language and hardware. And what I see in industry is that techs do not design with or program FPGAs or any other PLD. Techs have to know what they are and how they work but not the details of design and programming. That's not just my opinion, it is fact.
One of the professors at the college has reworked his digital labs to completely eliminate the old TTL and trainers and implements all experiments on the Altera FPGA, even the basic gates and flip flop labs. I give him credit for making such an effort to use the latest technology. I wish more professors were willing to learn the latest hardware and incorporate it into their courses. But I feel he went too far. The poor students come into his course with DC under their belt and they immediately start learning the software. Their heads are spinning. I had 5 students in my class who had previously dropped out of this professor's class just because it was too much for them.
Incidentally, I spoke with 5 other instructors teaching digital this semester about what they taught and how. (Yes, 5 other instructors, 3 full time faculty and 2 other adjuncts besides me. Enrollments are really up at the college this semester so lots of teachers were needed, just like the olden days.) Every one of us teachs digital in a different way. Academic freedom and all that. But the variations are so great it got me to worrying about consistency in content. There doesn't seem to be any way to be sure the student comes away with all the basic needs. Instructors do just what they want to do and not so much what they should do. And each one has the same attitude: "What are you going to do, fire me?" You get the picture.
Change is indeed hell. The colleges, the curricula, the courses, the labs, the textbooks and so on are still partly stuck in the past but slowly moving to the future. A real mixed bag. It is a miracle that students graduate with what they need. EE trained instructors are still trying to teach engineering to techs who won't ever do it in real life and will feel disappointed in their tech jobs because their bosses tell them they are not engineers. Fine state of affairs.
Keep plugging away at your courses and curricula to bring them up to date. I feel your pain.
Lou Frenzel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)