Academics vs Educators: Thoughts on Faculty Make-Up at Universities

"Universities are Institutions which the educators have lost interest in the students."

Several years ago, I penned those words for my University Admissions essay to a prestigious school in the US as a high school senior applying for her undergraduate degree. My admissions essay proceeded to blast University Systems for not focusing on their largest constituents, the students. I never got into that school. I had gotten a generic, "Thank you for applying, but unfortunately..." letter that didn't go into any sort of detail. But it was that view I held onto for the greater part of my education. 

With such a controversial admissions essay I was surprised that a few Universities still wanted me. (Granted, some of them had automatic admissions for top 10% of your graduating class, but there were a few that found my essay provocative and after all of the chips fel)l-- I managed to get myself into a decent school, with a few scholarships and a good prospect for full time employment afterwards. Several years later and now in a position where I work intimately with Universities... on the subject of Undergraduate Education-- I've refined my opinion... and found it interesting opinion shift. 

"Universities are Institutions which the educators have lost interest in the students."

Universities, or any post secondary education, voluntary education are also known as Higher Education. Most of these schools are voluntary attendance and are a place where students may continue their education. Wikipedia has a good download on the general statistics and facts about Universities. 

The United States has a total of 4,495 Title IV-eligible, degree-granting institutions: 2,774 4-year institutions and 1,721 2-year institutions,^[2] an average of more than 115 per state. As of 2010, the US had 20.3 million students in higher education, roughly 5.7% of the total population.^[3] About 14.6 million of these students were enrolled full-time.^{[4] -Wikipedia on US Higher Education}

It is accepted across most Industrial Societies that Universities are an integral part of the fabric of society. These are places of learning, research, development and... teaching.

The word Institution has it's own set of connotations. 
 Rom Harre that states: 

"An Institution [is] defined as an interlocking double-structure of [people] with [jobs] and [administration] and of social practices involving both expressive and practical aims and outcomes." 

How do I interpret that?

There are two parts to an institution. 1. The goals/aims of the institutions creation
 and the 2. resources required to achieve those. 

Applying to Universities, a University is united in purpose and cause or establishment, but requires resources to exist. These resources are a combination of those who are simply a part of the Institution, are a contributor to such or are managing aspects (if not the entire) establishment.

The major point to me?-- Universities are complex multi-layered objects that require resources at all levels to function. (Keeping that in mind helps shape the remainder of what it takes to understand certain issues (such as Students' importance being downgraded).)

 Perhaps a long way to get to the point, but I find it helpful to step through each level as I discuss it. 

Universities are Institutions 

Institutions require Resources

Resources are People+Skill Sets+ Immediate (Tools and Equipment) Assets+ Future Investments

More Succinct: Tools + Equipment, Hiring and training of people, and Investments= Need Funding

Bottom Line: Universities = Need Funding

*Side Note* If one ever wanted to understand the motivations of a particular University for shaping their curriculum as it is... one only needs to see the sources of funding. 

"Universities are Institutions which the educators have lost interest in the students."

Since Universities the constituency is assumed to be students... a University will always have a student component to their charter. 

A way I often look at the quality of a University is by measuring the quality of students. 

Looking at the institution as if it were a process and the student was the output. 

As with most things you can judge it either by it's process or the result. Although we often say, "It's not the result of the game, but rather how you played it..." (process) by human nature we will always put more importance on the direct impact or (result).

In the United States, the calibre of a University is often times measured by either the types of students it attracts or... the types of students that it outputs. 

None the less, every University must have a paradigm where students are an integral role. 

"Universities are Institutions which the educators have lost interest in the students."

This is where my statement... is in need of being revised.

Looking at a University and assuming all of the people part of its ranks had Education first in mind ... is similiar to the frustrations that I feel when someone looks at the company I work for and assumes all divisions are exactly the same. In Universities, Educators, although perhaps integral part, are not the only division of labour.

 calling out the major groups (according to my view) within a University. 

Administratives, Academics and Educators. 

Academics and Educators are different

Both Academics and Educators are found in the same place, Universities. 

Both have a propensity and a drive to learn/discover. 

The key differentiator between an Academic and an Educator though is how they use the University. 

Academics are focused on the learning of a new idea/concept or in more common terms Research. Their view on the University is about using the University as a vehicle to other things (more research).

It's Educators that take that same focus on learning... and instead of applying it to external topics ... they apply that interest and energy into the classroom/students= Teaching.  Educator's view on the University is as a purpose/mission/responsibility. 

Both have their own merits and values and neither one nor the other is better than the other. A University is judged greatly on the type of students they can attract or the type of students they can turn out and both Academics (Research), Educators(Teaching) and all of the Administrative functions (viewing Universities as the main focus) the are all needed. 

For an Institution to be healthy, it's the balance of these segments that really makes a difference. 

I had the opportunity to sit in a University visit where the focus was clearly Research Centric. 

The VP that I was with opened the meeting with the following:

"I'd like to spend some time talking about your teaching before you go into your Research. I feel what you teach your undergraduate students is what a school really believes."

*Side Note* We ended up funding the department anyways, (Luckily the faculty in the room didn't bat and eye and enthusiastically agreed). 

Where the problem arises is when the University begins to tilt the balance to other segments at the detriment of other segments. Issues such as: Funding or Resources are usually primary drivers.

My VP asking the University to first speak about their Educational efforts was checking the program's balance. Too often a school will be spectacular at turning out researchers and projects ... but the students that are attending don't get any of the benefits. I personally chalk it up to an imbalance.

Examples:
Here are a few observations I've had from traveling and looking at different school's curriculums in regards to what type of students they tend to turn out... (of course there are different extremes, I only selected a few):

========= Examples of Imbalanced Curriculums=========

 Evolving Institutions- We find these types of schools when either the department is new, there is an interim head from a different school. distance ed type of curriculums or there is a LOT of turn over in the department. 

+ These are fairly regimented and process oriented curriculums. There is very clear paths. 
+ There oddly usually is a lot of flexibility in the curriculum and special programs such as study abroad, outreach and work-study. 
+ Many times these curriculums use material from other schools, so you can get the same material as a more prestigious school (depends on the teacher). 
- Faculty is often times not motivated to go against the processes and instead are only there to collect pay-cheques. 
- Students are left to fend for themselves. 
- Resources are usually consumed outside the department and students don't get to see the results. 

The types of undergraduates these tend to turn out... are usually very well rounded in all disciplines... but weak on the technical skills they obtained (e.g. Electrical Engineering).


 Research Institutions- Schools where the faculty is mostly composed of researchers.
+ Best and Brightest minds are attracted to the facilities and the prestige in working at these schools
+  University has access to direct funding for the research and publicity
+ Students have access to cutting edge research ideas
- Requires a great deal of resources to continually attract the best
- University usually becomes specialised in a particular area.
- Students are often not taught by the professor, but rather TA's or Graduate Students 

The type of undergraduates these tend to turn out are... future graduate students/ require re-training when they are hired by employers. These students usually are lacking strong fundamentals or are very specialized into one area of expertise.

 Teaching Institutions- Schools where the faculty is mostly composed of educators.
+ Strong focus on fundamentals 
+ Faculty is focused on the students
- tends not to attract big names or "wow" factor faculty.
-funding may be difficult to obtain 

These types of graduates are my favorite. However, I have run into issues where they are too theory based without enough hands-on-research like exposure. These tend to be technically sound graduates that may need to be refined.

========

As with most venn diagrams, the overlap is usually the most interesting. 

Below is my take on the type of faculty that exists within each of these segment. 

This is where a few pivotal faculty members can easily change the dynamic of a curriculum. e.g. A strong researcher that has interest in education can bring his research into the classroom to give students a hands-on experience. An Educator with an administrative bent may want to standardize the curriculum and offer more options. Most importantly, I have found that department heads that are well balanced... tend to manage programs that tend to mirror that balance. 

You can also take the same diagram and map out examples below:

Using the Stephen Hawkings: "Students are the transition between the layman to the expert" and my Bamboo Writing Tablet to scribble my notes...

I'm sure there are more things that I can put on these graphs. 

Looking back on that college admission essay, I should have revised my statement to 

"Some Universities are Institutions which the educators the Academics have over-whelmed the Educators and the University has lost interest in the students."

... and focused on the merits of Teaching Institutions over Research or Administrative. In the end it really just depends on how that University sees the value of each of these departments and knows what type of student they wish to turn out. Good, Bad... Indifferent... because Universities are voluntary, it ultimately comes down to the student's choice... which, in my case? I would have chosen a teaching institution :-)

Overview of Main Points:

• Universities tend to be large and complex organizations and expectations should not be that they are only made up of Educators. 
• In a University the need for resources drives a lot of decisions. 
• Both Academics and Educators exist to pursue learning. However, Academics/Research pursue learning using the University as a means versus Educators pursue learning as their purpose. 
• The Administrators in the University are important to offer extra curricular and services. 
• The balance of these departments influences largely what type of students the program will output. 

underestimating colour...

I am completely and utterly into the colour neon green.

So much so that recently, Kenneth, to get me a gift to impress me--got me a neon green iPhone charger.!
Something as mundane, but every day as a phone charger; being my favorite colour was enough to make me smile all day.

The kiwi green iPhone charger from the wonderful man in my life

Which is what prompted me to write this post.

I would have gladly paid an extra few dollars to get a neon green iPhone charger over the standard white one.

The concept that a colour could make all of the difference in a purchasing decision may be lost on some, but I contend that colour choice and appeal is a crucial option decision for any company hoping to market to a broader audience. 

Take a look at what apple did in it's comeback with the iBook and iMac!

If someone asked me... I would take a lime green ibook any day (even though old and probably slow). 

I speculate that, 

Colour is the easiest and fastest way for someone to express their individuality/creativity. 

After all, if I were to try to appeal to a large audience-- I'd think the fastest way to do so is to allow them to have a say (customise the product).

Maybe a good way to give it a try would be to release a "special edition" of your product...

Example: Xbox releasing the HALO version of the xbox 

or Kitchen Aid and all of their stand mixer colour versions. 

In my every day job... I work a lot with Microcontroller development boards. 

What I work with...

As amazing as the technology is... it's not the presentation people fall in love with. 

So if I could have a request for those people who are making these development boards... I wish that colour was a bigger factor in your designs.

ESPECIALLY if you are working on an entry level boards-- that is targeted at someone is being introduced to electronics. 

After all, every company releases the standard Green PCB (although I love green, it's really pretty mundane after a while):

Snapshot of boards from TI's eStore. All standard green.

Take a look at this to a company called littlebits.cc 

It's not that their products are THAT revolutionary, after all there are other products out there that are just as modular, and appeal to the same type of audience (e.g. ModKit). However, what got me hooked and clicking to support was the fact that they had incorporated colours into the overall marketing of their product!

from littlebits.cc

So...  Here are a few things I'd like people who make kits to consider:
Allow people to express themselves by customizing, either through add on functions (like covers, or enclosures) or through offering other colour options. 

From a marketing standpoint, use colour to call attention to your products.
For those in my industry--this is particularly important if you actually specialize in being a semiconductor manufacturer-- and releasing development boards to market is a "necessary evil" to get your product out. It's important because the board is essentially the "face" of how you would like someone to perceive the product (chip). 

For example: If everything on the table is either standard pcb green, black or red... go for something exciting like Purple!, or release a special edition of your board ( I bet you'd be surprised by the excitement it brings).

Overall point-- don't underestimate how much lift you can get from giving a few colour options.
I (if anyone is listening).. would like to have a neon green development board next :-)

*disclaimer, if your product is simply awful, no colour will really make it any better...

Widgets for Website Navigation

I applaud some of the business units in TI for trying to make navigating their portfolio easier.
One of the ones that I particularly like is what they have on the TI Home Page-- Web Bench.
I think the most effective marketing is marketing that serves to educate first and then pull through products second... this tool does this perfectly.

Playing around with the tool you can play with optimizing for size, cost, heat... and a variety of design considerations. What's nice is that you don't have to dig around in a data sheet to get the equations required to calculate to model the different considerations.

I wish I had thought to do these exercises real time to give the screenshots... on my to do list for a revision of this blog post.

Things that I noticed/ see opportunity in:
1. ) you can choose a "optimization" this is kinda like a paradigm that all of the selection of parts fall into. I would love to see the groupings that drive this, what characteristics and what parameters make it fall into these buckets. I'd like to make available to other tool/software companies to make better and more intergrated tools.

2.) If the above is too much... I wish that they would let me "turn off" these optimziations... or at least output a "The reason why we selected this was because you choose ..."  That way I'm aware of why the part was in there.

Way I can use this right now...
The LED Design tool is going to be helpful while we are working on the LED power curtain project I have my interns working on :-)

 (Also, no wonder why so many of the students I talked to LOVE this tool... they probably are turning this information out as lab reports).

In conclusion-- I need/want to see more of these types of tools out there. Tools that help solve a problem first... and by doing so add value... THEN sell something.

The Dark Ages are Coming for Engineering Education...

Aside from that, this is a bit of rant... and this is what set me off:

Around Christmastime I was given one of these by my mother's boyfriend. Unfortunately somehow I had lost it during the move and with my mother and her boyfriend coming to visit soon-- I decided to go and buy one to replace the lost one. 

Meet my Apple "Magic" Trackpad.

It's nice.
I like it and enjoy using it.  After all, its a very well designed multi-touch capacitive touch bluetooth mousepad. It's exactly like the trackpad on my macbook, except I can sit on my couch and use it instead of having to have the machine on my lap. No problems here.

But, it's not the product that I object to...

It's the Marketing of the product.

Marketing a consumer electronics product as "magic" really does not do me any favors. Labeling electronics as "magic" gives the people the illusion that those who design/work with electronics are some class of "wizards and warlocks".

Just because you cannot see electrons moving with the naked eye, doesn't mean that it's magic.

Consider, several hundred years ago we couldn't see germs... and doctors in the middle ages were seen as a cross between a religious man and a wizard. There was no understanding on what made people sick, where disease came from-- and people lived in fear and superstition about life and death. The common man was vulnerable for those who wished to take advantage of these fears and superstitions. The practicing early health care professional struggled to overcome the emotion and misconception in order to advance their profession.

A Mid-Evil Alchemy/Health Chart

It wasn't until the breakthrough of understanding germs and micro-organisms did the medical profession begin to make significant advances. Furthermore, it wasn't until the layman understood these impacts did we see the benefits of these advances. No longer was being a doctor a charter handed down from God, but rather it was a learned skill to contribute to the common good. 

Look at modern day. Except the issue at hand isn't the germ, but rather how electronics work. In a day that more and more consumer applications are having higher levels of electronic content, it's odd how little the common person understands the mechanics how those devices work. As the dependency on these items increases so should the amount of people who understand them. But it's not the case. 

In America, it's harder and harder to recruit students to want to become electrical and computer engineers working with electronics. Engineering is difficult to begin with, but Electrical and Computer Engineers are seen as a subclass within these groups. 

I remember when I was in school seeing a shirt that said, "You can't spell "Geek" without EE". More recently I saw a similar one that said, "You can't get spell "Creep" without EE." 

The overall issue? It's difficult to get students to relate to and understand what a EE or CE major does. 

Mostly because there is a sort of misconception that what they do is on par to communing with the "dark arts" and only those with very special powers should/could/would want to do that. 

After all, "magic" can only be preformed by a select few.

As comical as it is to imagine looking at the electronics industry almost like a Harry Potter book... as an Engineering Education professional, I'm more alarmed by the subtle cultural impact these attitudes have.

First, it perpetuates the "us" versus "them" mentality. That knowledge of electronics would not normally cross camps and should be concentrated to an elite few (which is probably why Apple also refers to their store helpers as "geniuses"). 

Second as a result of elitism around electronics understanding there comes a risk that there are too few players in a market that...

Thirdly, is growing and people are starting to shape their lives around and become dependent upon.

 (If you don't believe me on this dependency, go and put a little ball of paper between the ethernet jack on your router/modem and the ethernet cable... and watch how vehemently the occupants needing the internet act when they can't figure out what's wrong. Props for anyone who has someone in their house that will unplug it and look to see what is causing the issue, but I doubt they would go through the trouble). 

Fourth, this same population that is trusting that the technology they are using is there to enhance their lives will be first to cry out and call foul when a perceived offense occurs... and somehow the lack of their ability to make an informed decision is blamed on the few (pretty much analogous to the American Financial Systems where people were taking out home loans they didn't understand trusting that the Bank would tell them if something was amiss).

Lastly, other countries don't appear to have this same passive attitude for understanding electronics. And although we may be innovators today-- as the supply of engineers dries out, we will have to turn to other countries to fill those demands. Instead of driving innovation by having the best and most creative minds at work, we will just be maintaining the status quo.

If anyone were to make a significant impact to helping reverse this?... it could be Apple.
Apple with their incredible reach, cult following and ability to inspire people to appreciate technology is  amiss their responsibility here.
Instead they choose to perpetuate the gap between electronics know-how and the layman. Charging a premium for the "ease of use" and benefiting from the fact that many people can't bother to learn how the product works.
After all, why would you when a "genius" will answer your question about your "magic" product?

Type in the word "Magic" on the Apple Store and these are the results...

On that note...
I have to go to work.
And I will need to resist the urge to re-name all of my daily interactions at the semi-conductor company I work for with World of Warcraft references.



PS.
IF you are interested here's a link to the Trackpad teardown.
I do appreciate how well designed the trackpad is. I just don't want to diminish the amount of brilliant engineering to something as superfluous as "magic".

Strength's Finders Books

I have a series of books that have provided the most profound impact on the person that I am.
One of the books that has greatly influenced my approach in anything is the Strengths Finder books.

The major point of the book is to speak about an approach that comes from a position of strength rather than one of weakness. A variety of analogies are used, but the basic assertion is :

[any improvement effort should come from a place that works with your most dominant characheristics rather than trying to simultaneoously juggle changing yourself as well as driving a result]

In particular, the examples given cover management of people.
The book's format includes:
-The overall premise for the book
-The discussion of the 34 character categories
-Test for your current status
-Explaination for your results
-Suggestions how you can motivate yourself and how people can work with you (use case).


What makes me love this book so much is how this is applicable in so many different areas.
Example:  When I am crafting a marketing strategy:
-Establish an overall premise (what am I trying to achieve)
-Understand the different audiences and use cases(Categories)
-Find and establish position (understand the strengths and weaknesses of our position)
-Create a list of value propositions that assist in your overall message...
-Obtain suggestions and testing of concepts
-Go into Marketing Campaign Creation--

It's the understanding what our current value proposition (strengths) are that helps the messaging and consistency of the overall message goal.
If the things that are part of our current value proposition are in conflict with the message we are trying to convey-- then we have two choices.
1. Change the message
or depending on the importance of the message...
2. Change the mechanics to alter a value proposition.

It's far easier and more natural to work with a system, rather than try and make it do something it wasn't designed for. But if you want to change a system's function-- sometimes it's better to stop the system's functions and do the work required-- rather than try and change it on the fly. 

So, if you get a chance, check out the book and take the quiz.
I'd be interested to find out what anyone else thought of their results.



-----

The Clifton StrengthsFinder For L.Swanland
As you may know, the Clifton StrengthsFinder measures the presence of talent in 34 categories called "themes." These themes were determined by Gallup as those that most consistently predict outstanding performance. The greater the presence of a theme of talent within a person, the more likely that person is to spontaneously exhibit those talents in day-to-day behaviors.Focusing on naturally powerful talents helps people use them as the foundation of strengths and enjoy personal, academic, and career success through consistent, near-perfect performance.

Below are my top five themes of talent, ranked in the order revealed by my responses to the Clifton StrengthsFinder.

How well do you think these themes describe me?

Restorative

People who are especially talented in the Restorative theme are adept at dealing with problems. They are good at figuring out what is wrong and resolving it.

Strategic

People who are especially talented in the Strategic theme create alternative ways to proceed. Faced with any given scenario, they can quickly spot the relevant patterns and issues.

Ideation

People who are especially talented in the Ideation theme are fascinated by ideas. They are able to find connections between seemingly disparate phenomena.

Individualization

People who are especially talented in the Individualization theme are intrigued with the unique qualities of each person. They have a gift for figuring out how people who are different can work together productively.

Learner

People who are especially talented in the Learner theme have a great desire to learn and want to continuously improve. In particular, the process of learning, rather than the outcome, excites them.

To learn more about the Clifton StrengthsFinder and how you can discover your top five themes, visit http://strengths.gallup.com

USB- I hate you

Let me preface this may be a bit of a rant.
After a particularly grueling day where I have been running around with my head chopped off-- only to realise that it's already 5:00, my email is overloaded and I haven't even gotten to item 4 on my epic TO DO LIST-- I had the following voicemail on my mobile (I removed his name):

"Hi, This is J_______ from University of _______, I am calling because I cannot get a response out of your e2e forum. I posted a question and didn't get someone to answer it. I am having a lot of problems with the USB that is found on the TI Launchpad. The computer doesn't seem to see that there is anything attached. I reinstalled the software. Please call me back to fix the issue with your chip and development platform." -Message left at 3:41 PM CST duration 1:44 minutes

Um...Not a yelling message, but it was definitely the calm condesending tone that an older brother would take with a younger sibling that got me irritated.
Irritation is one of those things that will quickly foul up any situation for me.
I am as transparent as they come-- so in order to still be professional--I had to take a break from the situation and  get out of my head. In particular, the irritating closing, "Please call me back to fix the issue with your chip and development platform," bit.

After typing for a few minutes (I find free writing really helps me purge nasty thoughts)-- I realised my issue.

I hate USB.

I'll clarify that I don't actually hate the standard USB, but rather the perception that it creates with certain people...
On one hand-- it's vastly convienent and a standard and everyone seems to understand it-- and on the other? It's so common and prolific that people take it's operation for granted!

Where do I think this perception came from?
... the wall outlet.
The fact that people are able to plug a USB cable into a charger and charge a device, just like they used to plug in a wall adapter-- makes them think that it's the same deal when you plug into your computer.

**Side note***It's funny because other standard interface products don't deal as much with these issues. 

Perhaps not as prolific, but you don't see HDMI wall outlets today... nor people using Ethernet cables to charge their smartphones.

More often than not, problems with Development Tools before Development happens-- are often things that can be solved with a little bit of training. 

Once upon a time, my company used to put these sorts of documents out for mass consumption:

These were vastly useful. 

Before every set of datasheets on a particular product, it would step you through the reason why that particular chip's function existed. 

Perhaps that's a different issue to be talked about on a different day-- but these types of documents are only available in pdf form now. I'm lucky that I happen to work in an office where people are constantly coming by and giving them to me (perhaps my reputation as a books hoarder precedes me). 

Although the document is slightly outdated (it only covers USB 1.1),  in preparation I was able to put together a semi-explainitory email that stepped him through checking all of the steps for why his MSP430 Launchpad was not getting picked up by his computer.

An Aside** Oddly, my approach when I am helping solve technical support issues-- comes from my mother. When I was a child, my mother used to solve every issue in the house with the process of elimination. She would ask, "WHO DID xyz". To which my sister and I would respond. If both my sister and I denied the action she would then go into, "Well, If I didn't do it. And Serena (my sister) says she didn't do it... and there are only three people in the house... then I ask you again, who did xyz?" Although it wasn't always actually the third person who lived in the house--- it was effective in getting the conversation started. **

So, with a USB problem there are three players here.

There is the Device

The Host

and the user.

So before I went digging into what would possibly be wrong with the Launchpad Development Kit's USB--- I had to go through the exercise and determine who was the most likely to blame.

1.) Tell me about your launchpad? Did you just receive it? Have you ever used it before? Did it ever work before?

2.) What type of computer are you using and what Operating System? Do you know if your drivers are up to date? (Most machines this is a given for the current operating system, but every so often, it's a custom Linux machine or it's a really old computer!)

3.) This may sound silly, but can you describe how you connected your device to the computer?

Step by Step, you got the box, opened the ESD Bag, pulled out the board--- then what?

Only 1 out of the 3 is directly my company's responsibility. The best we can do for 2 and 3 is try and make it as easy as possible. Save mandating a custom connector and a PC that we control (once upon a time Texas Instruments made PC's)-- there is a lot of extra consideration that we have to afford to be able to get one of our devices running on a computer.

That's at least 3 major operating systems, with 100's of hardware systems + multitude of drivers that are available... all things that don't deal directly with our core competency of : Making Silicon Chips...

Then-- add user error into the mix... and our platforms get a lot of blame for things that may not have been part of the initial product design. 

(I will say, we've gotten a whole lot better in solving them, but the point should be made that we have now learned how to do that after years of cranky USB issues). 

So armed with my excellent USB Guide-- Combination of the TI Bus Solutions Interface Databook (SLA067A- which is not in available anymore in data book format) and one of the best websites about USB-- Here-- I called the professor back. 

I found out he was using, the brand new launchpad I had handed him at ASEE conference, a Windows 7 HP Dell Laptop... the interesting issue was #3...

He scoffed that I asked him about the process to hook up the launchpad...

"Well, I opened the launchpad and connected it using a USB cord to the PC's USB Port."

"Did you use the cord that came with the launchpad?"

"No, I just used the one I use for my phone all the time."

"Can you do me a favour and use the one that came with the launchpad?"

"Okay..."

"I just need to know for sure that it's not the cord, USB cables sometimes are really picky..." 

I heard the computer in the background and stayed silent...

"Oh, it appears that the cable may have needed to be changed, " he drew out...

"No problem. I'm glad it's that simple... "

"I guess the phone cable I was using doesn't have the data pinned out."

"Yeah, that happens periodically, well good luck and I'm glad that the it wasn't the platform's issue!"

We ended the phone with some niceties and I sent him my preparation email anyways-- just as a reminder. If we still did databooks-- I amy have included that in my next care package to his school. 

Rant aside-- I am glad I didn't have to chase down a USB driver problem-- because that's not my area of expertise. I just wish that it wasn't so easy to blame our development kits.

Thoughts on Education- Introduction to ECE using TI EVALBOT

The below blog is a work in progress--

Setting expectations with TI's EVALBOT.

Robotics are a fantastic way to get students engaged with Electronics. I'm a particularly avid supporter of the tops down approach for students--but find myself a little conflicted in regards to Introduction to Electrical and Computer Engineering courses.

The conflict occurs when I see hardware at the Intro to Engineering courses-- that are either some version of a toy, or on a platform that a student will never encounter in Industry. It is my opinion that this is acceptable when education is compulsory (in high school or in clubs where vying for the student's attention is critical),  but at the University level and Vocational College level-- exposure should be as relevant as possible. After all, most students the purpose of going to college is to be employed when they graduate. Shouldn't the expectation be set in the very beginning to learn on platforms students would run into as engineers in the workforce?

*Side Note: The inspirational teaching model for me is the Auto Industry and how many kids become Mechanical Engineers. E.g. When a teenager gets interested in cars... he usually begins to learn about the object of his interest the car and doesn't get a golf cart first to learn on.

Not to demean platforms designed to capture interest of non-electronics audiences.

 Broad appeal platforms do exactly that-- grab people's attention! Once the attention is obtained-- then it's up to the skill of the instructor to make the associated concepts apparent to the student. Otherwise, the experience is no more effective than a structured play session... and we don't need to pay for structured education for that.

My primary concern in using toys or simplified versions of tools is this: there is the danger that the follow on courses will be so different from the safe, well structured environment that the student was exposed to-- that anything that is fairly industry standard will shock and feel like foreign world. This in turn will demotivate a student!

One of my favourite University visits was when a student who had been programming exclusively in the Arduino IDE opened up a competitor's IDE (also Eclipsed based framework) and let out, "Well, we aren't in Kansas any more." He proceeded to tell me all of the deficiencies in this framework using Arduino's simple editor as his reference point. Sadly, if he looked at TI's IDE, he would have had the same complaint or even IAR Systems (the top choice for most embedded designers).

It's expectation setting.

Teach a student that programming can happen in three clicks... and every environment after that one will feel "wrong".


However, teach a student incremental concepts that he or she can personalize/relate to-- and not only are you teaching students-- but you are also preparing them.

I am convinced that students who's first experience with hardware/software that doesn't go 100% perfect-- learn how to ask the questions to WHY certain conditions exist. Those who end up being some of the best engineers in inudstry ask, "How can we prevent this in the future?"

Taking away that real world experience? Insulates the student from common WHY? questions they would have begun to ask. Worst yet, it pushes it into after they graduate when their performance is in evaluation.

Some of my best teachers did not shield me from difficult concepts early on. In fact, many times they did not hide the difficulty of the concept, but instead used it as an opportunity to gauge my comprehension abilities. They were in essence outlining the requirements and letting me assess my own abilities against that measurement.


Let me give you an example of a course that is currently in testing phase.

At the Introduction to Electrical and Computer Engineering level- freshmen are required to take this course in conjunction with the Introduction to Engineering.



The first course consists of a video-- of this re-brained Roomba running a course.

The professor takes time to introduce the concepts that are taught in creating one of these.
Microcontroller, software, controls, programming , etc.
He ends the lecture on explaining that students by the end of their time will be able to create systems that are much more complex and fully featured.
He doesn't spend a great deal of time "dumbing" down the concepts. He uses the real terminologies and shows the actual use of the concepts. 

The second time, they are introduced to EVAL-BOT.

Perhaps the students don't understand what a Quadature Encoder is and how it functions, but the term is introduced.
I asked what was the basis of introducing these terms even though most of the students won't know what it is. He replied, "The interested students can look it up, the students that aren't will run into it later and have heard it before."
This section is about unboxing the Eval-bot and using it as is-- the finished product.

The next session is now introducing the concept of changing the fixed function that the bot shipped with.

e.g. "That's nice that the bot does this little roomba routine, but say that I wanted to tell it where to go-- how would I do that?"

Discussing what would need to happen to change the robot's function-- adding interfaces, changing the program-- then allowing the students to try it out.

*Stellaris has a neat FlashProgrammer that allows students to re-flash any of their development kits to a different demo (that has already been loaded into the FlashProgrammer) without ever having to open an IDE.  This is useful if you're not ready to introduce C Programming yet. *Refer to this blog post on how to do this Evalbot Chronos Change.

The next meeting discusses the differences between changing a function-- to being able to alter a fixed function.

This is where the concept of "configuration" is introduced. This is where students open up the IDE and get an explanation of what an IDE is, what parts make up code. They then open the code that changed the Eval-bot's function in the previous lab and see the different parts. It's here we have them configure the bot to a certain specification.
 (e.g. Change the OLED display from Micrium OS EvalBot to - I <3 ECE-)

*StellarisWare helps with this step, that the individual graphics are just function calls and to activate the display is a function call.

http://www.ti.com/tool/sw-ek-evalbot

Then, the next lab consists of customizing how the robot behaves.

The student will insert a new set of code.
Explaining what has to happen on the lowest level for the code to interact with the bot.
Guiding the student through introducing new elements.
Eg. Adding the #pause# function for the Chronos Watch- Evalbot demo-- where hitting a button on the watch lets the bot go into a waiting state. or Making the Evalbot sing the first twelve tones of the imperial march.
Walking them through this example.

Then ... have them switch examples and try it out on their own + ask questions.


Often times educators forget. These are not just high school students sitting in their intro courses. Often times these are the top 10-20% of their graduating classes with SAT scores that would put any of us to shame.
These students are highly capable and should not be underestimated. It is mastering the correct balance of introducing concepts in the right order, plus being able to explain it in a manner that makes sense to the student-- that is the responsibility of the educator.

The payback is immense-- I've seen time and time again. Just like with pre-tests, it shows students what concepts they need to learn... so they are able to discern a level of importance themselves of what they are being exposed to-- this in turn makes the experience personal.

Give the student a target.
Let the student measure themselves against that target for progress.
Don't treat the students as if they are unable to understand.
Don't overreach comprehension-- focus on the facts rather than the potential. This is a Analogue to Digital Converter. An Analogue to Digital Converter is useful in taking real world signals and making the microcontroller act upon those. Next, go into more detail at the Analogue to Digital Converter section.
Expose the Student, Demonstrate for the Student, Guide the Student then give the student space to practise on their own.
 Have high expectations-- and students will most likely strive to achieve those.

I contend that students at the Freshman ECE Engineering level are fully capable of being introduced to serious microcontrollers early on--all they need is an educator that sets the tone for them.