A Communications Course is NOT an Elective

I am updating my McGraw Hill textbook Principles of Electronic Communication Systems.  The 3rd edition was published in 2008 but a great deal has transpired in communications since then.  While the fundamentals have not changed, the circuit and systems technology seems to change daily.  The revision for the 4th edition is major.

This book is widely used in universities and community colleges for a general introductory course in wireless, networking and other communications technologies.  Yet it got me thinking why more schools do not offer a communications course.  In an informal survey of electronic technology (ET) curricula I find that the majority of community colleges and 4-year ET schools do not offer any kind of communications course.  Why?

My own view is that communications should be a basic subject in any electronic program, like digital or microcomputers.  It is a near criminal act to graduate a student without some basic communications knowledge.  Comm is everywhere today, in every product and the heart of any application.  Try to name something electronic these days that does not involve communications.  Cell phones, tablets, Wi-Fi, the Internet, Ethernet, cable TV, fiber optics, satellites, drones, radar, wireless everything.  Most electronic employees like techs and engineers work with communications everyday.

Anyway, if  your school does not have a communications course, consider adding one.  In my survey I saw that many schools had communications courses but they were inactive.  These were centered around 2-way radio and FCC licensing.  These are still valid today, of course, but the dominant communications today is cellular and Wi-Fi.  Time to update the course.

My new 4th edition will be available late this year and it even has a new lab manual.  Take a look if  you are updating a comm course or considering a new one.

Cheers.

Online Electronic Labs

One of the main excuses for not implementing online electronic technology courses is that students cannot do the lab.  I say bull.  A lab component is easily implemented especially in the low end basic courses.  Let me explain.

 

First, home study schools have been using lab materials for decades.  While there are not too many of these so-called correspondence or distance learning programs still around, schools like AII, CIE, NRI, NTS, ICS, Heathkit, CREI and others provided low cost kits and instruments with hands-on lab manuals with experiments.  The labs included a DMM and some of them an oscilloscope as part of the tuition.  The low cost components were supplied along with a breadboard or trainer to build basic circuits and experiment with them.  All were successful.

 

The secret was in the lab manual.  It was very detailed so that students could get through the lab work with minimal mistakes and help.  Of course, students could contact the instructors for help if needed.

 

That approach is viable today.  Any school can put together a set of parts and equipment that the student buys at the bookstore.  It is affordable and doable.  Just have a procedure for students to call or email the instructor for help.

 

Companies like National Instruments (NI) also now have a trainer that connects to a laptop to provide virtual test instruments like a DMM, scope, signal generator, Bode plotter, etc.  NI uses a version of their well-known LabVIEW software.  A breadboard with power supplies plugs into the laptop USB port.  That product is called myDAQ.

 

National Instruments' recent acquisition of Digilent gives them a couple of other such products like the Analog Discovery.  Digilent also offers a mix of FPGA and microcontroller lab products for academia as well.

 

This approach is very applicable to all the basic courses like DC, AC, semiconductor, linear, basic digital and microcontroller.  All the hardware is affordable.  The secret is in the lab manual and support.

 

Just don't say that online labs are not possible.  It has been done successfully for years and is still a viable approach.

 

 

The Ideal Electronic Technology Curriculum

What if you had to create a new AAS degree program in electronics technology from scratch?  Could you do it?  And if you could, what would it be?  Would it be traditional as it has been for decades or something that matches the world today?  Think about it. Here is what I would do.

A Hybrid Approach

First, I would keep the fundamentals but implement them in online courses.  These would be courses in DC and AC circuits as well as basic semiconductor technology and linear circuits.  All work would be online with students implementing the labs with their breadboard trainers and laptop-based instruments.  All the remaining courses would be traditional, lecture and lab.  Here are the courses:

·         Digital – Similar to current courses but updated to include FPGA emphasis, interfaces, A/D, D/A, etc.

·         Microcontrollers – Similar to current courses.  C programming.

·         Advanced microcontrollers – Emphasis on advanced programming in C and interfacing.

·         Communications – Survey covering wireless, networking, and all communications technologies.

·         Robotics – Introductory course on robots including drones.

·         Computers – PCs, laptops, tablets, operating systems, peripherals, interfaces, software, the Internet.

·         Audio – Complete coverage of all audio areas from hi-fi, recording, music, large sound systems, portable audio, MP3 players, Bluetooth audio.

·         Video – Complete coverage of all video including TV, cable, satellite, OTT, surveillance, cameras, etc.

·         Wireless – In-depth wireless coverage with emphasis on cellular, M2M, Wi-Fi, and microwave.

·         Industrial – Survey course of process control, PLCs, sensors, field buses, motor control.

·         Alternative energy – Solar, wind, smart grid and metering, emergency power, LED lighting, batteries and charging, etc.

·         Test and measurement – Introduction to most the popular test equipment and testing and measuring procedures.

Note the focus on applications.  And ALL courses are required.  Each course will have a dedicated modern lab.  This is what will keep students motivated and interested.  And the mix will better prepare students for actual jobs.  Note that there is minimal math need and no analysis or design content.  The program prepares technicians for hands-on industry jobs.  They are not engineers.

The Downsides

What are the down sides to this approach?  Well for starters, there are no equivalent courses except for the basics so I suspect transfer credit is out of the question.  No BSET transfers for graduates of this program.  What a shame.  That just goes to illustrate the strait jacket that our educational system has become.  Conform to some model of the past or be left out.  For a subject like electronics that is constantly changing, it is the worst possible situation.  It prevents change and stifles innovation.  Such a program may be excellent for the students and the employers but for the institutions it is not a good thing.  Traditional is better.  Minimal change and fuss.  I think most faculty would keep it that way.

Another downside is the expense.  Such a program would be expensive to set up because of the need to equip many new labs with the latest equipment.  An initial investment would be high but would be good for a few years.  Yet it would need updating every so often as technology changes dictate.

Conclusion

It is fun day dreaming about what could be.  However, I am realistic enough to realize something like this would never happen in the real academia.  The traditionalists would kill it on sight.  Too bad as this kind of program is what would attract and hold students.  Maybe a proprietary school could do this and benefit not only itself but the students, graduates and the employers.

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