My New Textbook

Just a quick note to  you who follow this blog.  McGraw Hill just published my new electronics textbook.  The title is Contemporary Electronics:  Fundamentals, Devices, Circuits and Systems.  It is the first textbook to cover the systems approach, at least that I know of.  The book is designed for 2-year AAS degree programs.  Here are some of the key features:

• Covers 3 courses, DC, AC and Semiconductor devices and basic linear circuits
• 3 Chapters on troubleshooting.
• 2 system chapters
• System sidebars: chapter supplements with new and related materials
• Applications emphasis.
• Test bank and Power Points
• Matching lab manual.

If you are looking for a new text, take a look.  Go to www.mhhe.com/frenzel1e for details.  And you can get a review copy from your MH rep.

I will be in Houston at the Texas Community College Teachers Association annual meeting Friday, February 22 at 1 pm. I will be speaking to the Electronics group and will give away a copy of the book.  Then I will be at the MH booth if  you want to say hello and see the book.

Hope to see you there but if not at least take a look at the book and give me your feedback.

Lou

Engineering Technologists Are Engineers

The title above is also the title of an article in the Spring 2012 issue of thet Journal of Engineering Technology.  This one slipped by me even though I mentioned the other BSET articles in the Fall issue of that publication in my post of December 17th.   Thanks to Ron Land, a professor at Penn State University for pointing me to this article.  Ron, author of the article, was involved in a survey of employers regarding how BSET graduates were employed.  And his article confirms what we all were glad to hear, BSET grads get jobs as engineers.

Of course, this is nothing new to those of us who have held bachelor of technology degrees and engineering jobs as well.  I have one of the oldest (oldest?) bachelor of technology degrees, a BAS from the University of Houston.  I won't say when I got that but even in those days when no one knew what the degree was, I ended up in one engineering position after another in the early days of my career.  Most BSET grads I have ever talked to had engineering jobs.

I have always been disturbed by the idea of saying that BSET programs prepare graduates for jobs as "engineering technologists".  Just what is that?  And have you ever seen a job add for an engineering technologist?  If you have, I would love to hear the details about it.  Industry does not define such a job.  Industry has jobs for engineers and technicians.  That's it.

Anyway, Ron, thanks for your contribution to this controversy and clarifying what is going on in the real world.  Be proud of your BSET.

And happy new year to you all.

Lou

BSET Update

Just a note about BSET education.  The latest issue of the Journal of Engineering Technology (JET), Fall 2012 issue, Volume 29, No. 2 has several key articles about ET.  Check out the article called Engineering Technology National Forum: An Action Arm of ETC for National Impact.

One key facts that emerged confirming what I said in an earlier blog is that most BSET grads are employed as engineers.  This is not a surprise to most of us who have a bachelors in technology degree.  I worked as an engineer for many years after the degree and so has most other BSET grads.  The companies need engineers and for most available jobs the BSET is perfectly fine.

While you are looking that issue, also see the other excellent piece called On Engineering Technology Education: BS to PHD.

The JET is a publication of the ASEE.  I get the print copy but you may be able to read it online at www.asee.org.  If not, you need to join ASEE.

Cheers,
Lou

ETD Listserv Survey on Electronic Technology

Here is the outcome of the survey I posted to the ETD Listserv in November.  This is my analysis and understanding.

The percentage totals for some questions do not add up to 100% because not all participants answered all questions and/or in many cases participants selected two or more choices.

The comments to the last question are particularly interesting and telling.  Worth a read.

1.       How is your ET program doing today?

a.       Doing well and growing.                        36%

b.      Healthy but flat with no growth.       41%

c.       In decline.  Losing enrollment.           10.2%

d.      Recently closed.                                       10.2%

This is positive news.  77% of programs are doing OK and some growing.  The growth has more to do with local jobs and related activity.  And aggressive recruiting efforts really help.  All this is in contrast to the status of things several years ago.  There has been some improvement.  Still, I hate to see programs closing but often little can be done if there is no jobs market for the graduates.  It’s a local problem.

2.       What factors contribute to the status of your program?

a.       Local industry needs.                             43.6%

b.      Job growth                                                 18%

c.       Lack of jobs                                                                12.8%

d.      Interest in new programs.                   30.6%

e.      Other.  What? 

a.       Quality of program and efficacy of our recruiting efforts.

b.      Transfer to university.

c.       Poor students.

d.      Students do not have the skills to survive the program.

e.      Declining enrollment.

f.        Only one instructor.

g.       Active recruiting.

h.      Students don’t know what electronics is any more and what you can do with it.

Clearly local industry needs are the clues to a healthy program.  Develop local companies as partners and your program can prosper.  Note the 30.6% interest in new programs.  New offerings that match job needs are a positive step to healthy program growth.

 

3.       What new courses or programs have you added lately?

a.       None                                                             23%

b.      Alternative energy (solar, wind, etc.)33.3%

c.       Electric utility                                             10.2%

d.      Wireless/communications                   2.5%

e.      Biomedical                                                  10.2%

f.        Other.  What?

a.       BSEET

b.      Networking (2)

c.        Computer forensics

d.      2^nd microcontroller course

e.      Arduino course (a type of micro)

f.        EE Engineering

g.       Industrial electronics

h.      Robotics (2)

i.        Data acquisition

j.        Electric/mechanical drives

k.       Nanotechnology (2)

l.        Industrial maintenance.

Alternative energy programs have attracted some new enrollments in the past several years.  It is an interesting and exciting field.  Many of these new programs came about with grant funding to support the green energy movement.  Unfortunately, as most schools have learned, there are few if any jobs available in this field.  Some do exist but in areas were the need and availability of techs is greatest.  Wind farms find it hard to find workers but few are willing to do the tower climbing needed in most cases.  And only affluent sunny areas can afford solar.  Another field with this problem is nanotechnology.  Grants are available to fund some courses but where are the jobs?  It is OK to take the grant money and build some courses or a program but just remember there may be no real jobs available.  Maybe in the future.

 

My experience shows that jobs do exist in industry and in networking.  And a second micro course is a great idea.

4.       Have you heard of the system approach to teaching electronics?  If so what are your thoughts?

a.       Have heard of it.                      46.3%

b.      Considering it.                           18%

c.       Plan to incorporate.                                15.4%

d.      Have not heard about it.       7.7%

e.      Do not plan to incorporate. 5.1%

f.        Need more information.      7.7%

g.       NOTES:  Already using.  Have used it for 20 years.  Already doing it.  Not entirely sold.  Not sure yet.

The system approach has been around for five to eight years now and it is surprising to see so many who have not heard of it.  The majority have heard of it and some are already using it.  It is the way of the industry at least for technicians and AAS graduates.  Some do not agree with its premises but I doubt they know the real truth about what goes on in the modern industry.  Others are open minded and still willing to evaluate the concept.  If you have not seen  MATEC’s www.esyst.org  website, take a look to get the full explanation.

 

5.       What factors most influence what you teach or how you update your courses and curriculum?

a.       Industry input.                                          77%

b.      What other schools are doing.           7.7%

c.       What the textbooks include.              18%

d.      Clearly visible industry trends.           49%

e.      Research.                                                    5.1%

f.        Other.  What?   Time available in curriculum.  Advisory board. (2)

I was happy to see that 77% use industry input to help decide what to teach.  How much of this is real and not lip service I do not know.  I have seen advisory boards recommend changes then after the meeting all is forgotten and the status quo is preserved.  In any case, it is always a good idea to defer to local industry ideas and suggestions.  Then actually implement the changes.

 

One problem I have seen is that some local industry representatives see the faculty as the experts in knowing what to teach.  In my experience, the faculty is competent but not in tune with the real world of work and current technology and needed skills.

 

I should have asked how faculty learns of the “clearly visible industry trends”.

 

6.       Do you use a standard textbook?

a.       Yes                                                                                                 92.3%

b.      No.                                                                                                 2.5%

c.       We use print hand outs and other supplements        25.6%

d.      We use an online text and references.                          10.2%

No mystery here.  Most do use standard texts at least for most courses.  There were multiple comments here saying that for some courses no texts were available so other materials are used.  Handouts and supplements are common place and no doubt consist of new material not in the textbooks.

 

7.       What are your thoughts about online courses?

a.       We have them now.                                               56.4%

b.      Like but do not currently use.                             12.8%

c.       Will eventually adopt.                                            5.1%

d.      Do not like them and will not use.                    10.2%

e.      For future consideration.                                     7.7%     

f.        Cannot do labs.                                                         25.6%

This result really surprised me.  I had no idea that so many online courses were being offered.  No full degrees but multiple courses are available.  And these courses are of the hybrid variety with some conventional lab or class activity combined with online instruction.

There is a small group of responders that are vehemently opposed to online work.  Maybe they perceive it as a threat.  Or mostly I think they have never tried an online course.  Online instruction is the wave of the future given the high cost of education today.  Several comments related to how online instruction was mandated at the dean level despite any opposition.

And by the way, there is a way to do labs.  Most think it cannot be done but it has been in the past.  I will have a blog entry up on this shortly.  www.electronictech.blogspot.com   

8.       What is currently your greatest concern or issue today?

a.       Disappearing feeder programs.

b.      Decrease in upcoming student populations.

c.       Lack of preparation of incoming students.

d.      Availability of jobs in local area.

e.      The quality of leadership of the dean.

f.        Program deactivation.

g.       Making sure course content is applicable to current industry requirements.

h.      Maintaining current student count.

i.        Lack of jobs

j.        Recruiting is limited to advisors without faculty input.

k.       Instrumentation and control AAS is going strong.

l.        Need new direction from outside the college.  The big picture.

m.    Lack of appropriate preparation of high school students for ET program.

n.      Failure of high school teachers to push mid-tech careers.

o.      The huge gap between the standard electronics courses and reality.

p.      Sufficient numbers of qualified students.

q.      Moving into a new building.  Logistical nightmare.

r.        I am training the bottom half of the high school class, need to get the tip half involved.

s.       A lot of subjects to add with less room left in the curriculum.

t.        Finding a balance between learning and industry needs.

u.      Getting the resources to incorporate new items.

v.       Maintaining program growth.

w.     Textbooks are mostly out of date with what industry is doing.

x.       State mandated curriculum.

y.       Few system approach textbooks available.

z.       Academic level and interest of students coming into the program.

aa.   What most industries need in an electronic technologist.

bb.  The crazy ideas from politicians and administrators for future solutions of problems.

cc.    Reaching out to potential students.  We have positions in industry we cannot fill.

These comments are priceless.  They really show what is going on and what the real concerns are.  The main issues are jobs, the preparation of students for college work, enrollment maintenance and growth, and textbooks.

Lou Frenzel

Technology Editor, Electronic Design Magazine

Adjunct Professor, Austin Community College

I'm Back

It has been a while since I posted anything new.  I  have been busy and there has not been enough interesting new stuff to say.  But that is changing.  There are lots os new topics of interest, so look for some new posts in the coming weeks and next year.

Hope all of you have a happy holiday season. 

The Future of the Bachelor's Degree in Technology

I want to discuss something serious. Like just where is the BSET degree going? I have always had the nagging feeling that it was not really necessary especially today. Maybe when those degrees were first offered they were just the right thing but with so many changes in electronics engineering over the years, maybe the BSET is just a redundancy.

The first bachelor's degrees in technology came along in the mid 1960's. I know. I have one called a Bachelor in Applied Science (BASc) given by the first school to award them, the University of Houston. The idea was to fill the need for jobs called "technologists". Not engineers or not technicians, technologists. Well as it turned out there never were any jobs called technologists in industry. I have never seen such a thing in my 30 plus years in industry. When I got my BASc in 1965, I was immediately hired as an engineer and all my subsequent jobs were with that title. Most employers never heard of technologists but of course knew what techs were and engineers. My BAS degree adequately prepared me to do most engineering. The only topics I did not get were statics, dynamics and thermo which I never used anyway.

The same thing is roughly true today. BSET grads mostly become engineers. Maybe more of them go into manufacturing, sales and marketing, field service but a large percentage of them do actual engineering. Don't tell those with PE licenses as they will have a hemorrhage. PEs never accept the fact that you don't actually have a PE license to do engineering work. That is especially true in electronics.

So what am I saying here? Is the BSET really necessary? Why don't we just call that degree a BSEE in applied engineering or something like that and make the BSET departments part of engineering? When I look at the curricula for EEs and ETs at the BS level they are so close that it seems silly to duplicate. Both BSEEs and BSETs take the same math and science any way, and the electronic courses mostly use the same texts and cover the same material just under a different rubric. How dumb is that? I know it is political and turf building more than anything.

Another part of the problem is that as AAS degree programs move toward a more systems approach and one less focused on circuit analysis and design they become a poorer fit for transfer to BSET programs. I say let AAS programs concentrate on the needs of technicians and industry and less on what is needed to transfer to a BSET program. I suspect the total transfers from AAS to BSET to be very small anyway. If an AAS grad wants a BS degree, he or she should go to a university offering an Industrial Technology degree. It is a better fit anyway.

What are your thoughts on this?

LF

New Book on the Systems Approach

You have probably been hearing about how the right way to update an AAS degree curriculum in electronics is to pursue a systems path. You can certainly read about it in one of my past posts. That approach is to begin emphasizing systems and equipment and concentrate less on components and circuits. Modern techs do not analyze or design circuits.....they are not engineers. And few if any are headed to be engineering techs even if such jobs were plentiful. Most techs today do troubleshooting, service and repair. They install and operate equipment. And the do lots of testing and measuring. Yet the current curricula is still stuck in the old "troubleshoot to the component level" thing or teaching ten ways to bias a BJT when MOSFETs clearly rule electronics these day.

So far I have not identified any system level texts to help you go the system route. But I did write a book that takes that approach. It is called Electronics Explained: The New Systems Approach to Learning Electronics. It is published by Newnes/Elsevier and is available now. You can get a copy through Amazon or Barnes & Noble. It is not a formal textbook, but more a trade book but it gives you a good look at what a text would cover and how it would cover it.

If you want to get a head start on revising to the highly touted systems approach, this book will get you started. And don't forget to go to the Esyst website that I mentioned in an earlier post. www.esyst.org.

LF

The Systems Approach to Electronic Technology Education

You have probably heard of this by now. Many are proposing that the teaching of electronic technology (ET) should take a more systems view rather than the circuit analysis approach that most schools use now. I am one of those who recognized this approach years ago. Employers have known about it for years but have never pushed the issue with the colleges. Yet, as technology and industry move on, it is time for the schools to adapt. Painful as it is for any school to change, it is a must if the ET program is to survive.

In a nutshell, the colleges teach a component and circuit oriented approach to electronics. Analyze discrete component circuits. Lots of calculations and even coverage of things that are no longer relevant. For example, think of how much time you devote to teach BJTs and biasing. Or teaching Karnaugh maps and TTL. Today, most circuits are ICs so who needs to know ten ways to bias a BJT? And most of those ICs are MOSFETs anyway. In the same way, most digital circuits are implemented with embedded controllers and FPGAs. TTL went away years ago anyway. Besides techs do not design or analyze these circuits anyway. It is a waste of time, especially in a 2-year program where time and efficiency rule the curriculum.

What techs really need to know today is how the equipment and systems work. Signal analysis and flow rather than circuit analysis. Block diagram analysis rather than schematics. Techs troubleshoot, service, maintain, test, measure, install, operate and otherwise work with the equipment. Repair is at the board and module level, not so much at the component level in most cases. All courses should be changed to reflect this systems approach that employers want and techs need to do the work today.

Some schools have already made some changes in this direction but more needs to be done. It is hard for faculty to discontinue what they have been doing for years. And it is hard to know exactly how to make the changes or what the changes should be. And there are no textbooks taking this approach, yet.

If you are interested in moving your ET program into the 21st century, you need to get on this bandwagon. A quick start way is to look at the work that has been done over the past 3 years on an NSF grant that funded a systems development program. Go to www.esyst.org. Lots of guidelines and detailed recommendations. It is time to change.

Lou Frenzel

Results of recent online survey on EET

Here is the result of my recent brief online survey of Electronics Technology. The response was excellent and I sincerely thank those of you who took the time to respond. I hope you will find the information useful. I leave the interpretation to you, however, I have provided my interpretation after the results if you are interested.

Lou Frenzel
Technology Editor, Electronic Design Magazine
Adjunct Professor, Austin Community College

1. Your school is
a. 2-year 61 %
b. 4-year 43%
Note: Total more than 100% since some institutions offer both AAS and BS.
2. Are your enrollments in electronics technology classes up or down?
a. Up 62.5%
b. Down 20.8%
c. Flat 16.7%
3. When was the last time you made significant changes to your courses or curriculum?
a. This year. 34.7%
b. 1 to 2 years ago. 26.4%
c. More than 2 years ago. 37.5%
Note: Total not 100% as some did not respond.
4. What new electronic majors or specialties have you implemented within the past 2 to 3 years?
a. Electric power/energy 20.8%
b. Wireless/communications 18%
c. Robotics 16.7%
d. Industrial/manufacturing 11.1%
e. Biomedical 16.7%
f. Other 33.3%
Note: Total is more than 100% since several indicated multiple additions. In the Other category here are those listed:
• None (Most often mentioned)
• Embedded controllers (Many mentions)
• Semi/Microelectronics
• Automotive electronics
• Networking
• Photonics
• Info tech/Computer science/programming
5. Are you familiar with the trend toward teaching a systems approach (rather than component/circuits approach) to electronics technology?
a. Yes 84.7%
b. No 9.7%
Note: Total not 100% as some did not respond.
6. Which of the following is the one most critical issue facing your college?
a. Low enrollments 38.9%
b. Retention 27.8%
c. Dated curriculum and courses 9.7%
d. Lab costs 11.1%
e. Other 18%
Note: Total is more than 100% as multiple items were selected. In the Other category the item most mentioned was budget limitations and lack of funding. Other items included bad management and uncooperative/under productive faculty.
7. What is your feeling about online electronic technology education?
a. A potential direction for the future. 52.8%
b. Looking forward to it 22.2%
c. Not in favor of it 25%
Note: Several indicated that they were already doing this in a hybrid program, lecture online and on-campus lab.
8. What is your opinion of current textbooks?
a. OK as is 25%
b. Dated but OK on the fundamentals 44.4%
c. Not relevant to current jobs 20.9%
d. Covers recent and advanced topics well 9.7%
Note: Lots of extra comments on this one.
• Too expensive.
• Lack of relevance to real world. (Multiple mentions)
• Can get along fine without text books.
• Need to go to e-books.
• Use/adapt engineering/scientific texts.

My Interpretation
I have been tracking the status of Electronic Technology for almost ten years now and have written about it extensively in this blog. My impression is that the current status is relatively positive compared to 3 to 5 years ago when enrollments were down and many colleges closed their Electronic Technology departments.
• Enrollments are definitely up. Several mentioned that the down economy was the main cause with many going back to school to improve their employability. Still, one third of enrollment are down to flat.
• Those of you who made changes in the program especially adding new majors or specialties survived the downturn of the past years and have turned their enrollment situation around.
• New majors seemed to help enrollments especially anything to do with power/energy, robotics, industrial and biomed.
• Despite a positive enrollment status, most indicated that low enrollments were the most critical issue. Retention was the second largest concern.
• The movement toward a systems approach to teaching electronics (the real world today) is clearly very well known but what I should have asked is who is doing it.
• I was surprised to see such a positive outlook for online programs. One quarter are clearly against this but anyone denying the online movement risks getting left behind. The Web/Internet is all powerful today and a key driver of our youth. It is the future.
• Two thirds indicated some dissatisfaction with the textbooks. They are dated and less relevant than in years past. Hope some publishers read this and give us some good updates or new texts.

Comments welcome.

Lou Frenzel