Building Robots for Engineers Week

RoboSlam Engineers Week 2015 sm 75Yesterday, an all-day NVivo training course. Today, a robot building workshop for teens. Every day here brings a new adventure.

shannonchance's avatarRoboSlam

Today, over 40 Transition Year students from secondary schools around Dublin came together to build robots at Dublin Institute of Technology, Kevin Street campus. This was part of Ireland’s annual Engineers Week. Our event was supported by Engineers Ireland, Science Foundation Ireland, and the volunteer efforts of more than a dozen staff members and students from DIT.

The kids were so much fun!

It’s amazing to observe these robots come together in a few short hours. We started at 10 this morning, and by 4 PM the robots were ready to rumble.

View original post

In “The Irish Times” Today

“The Irish Times” is running a series on women in STEM. I was quoted in today’s article.

The reporter chopped out all the caveats a researcher like me uses (tends to, most, lends support…) but all in all I’m very pleased to have been able to bring student development theory into the conversation here.

View of Whiteness from across the Pond

Derek Ham and his family.

Derek Ham and his family.

From across the Atlantic, I’m watching the USA finally reach a crucial tipping point.

Enough people are coming to their senses and finally recognizing that all white people in the USA do benefit from simply being white. We have life easier because of being white each and every day. Regardless of whether we want to or not, we do.

And therefore, we have an obligation to help fix a broken system.

A former colleague of mine, Derek Ham, posted a link to the article INTUITIVELY OBVIOUS_ Our white privilege earlier today. It was written by two white MIT professors.

Please read it, and then read Peggy McIntosh’s excellent article White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Backpack.

Then, when you’re done, please take a minute to complete some fun and fascinating games developed by Harvard as part of Project Implicit. After you log in to the Project’s website, the server randomly assigns you one of Harvard’s Implicit Assumptions Tests.

I took every single one of the IAT tests available in 2006. And I found them to be stunningly accurate.

It was interesting to discover what sub-conscious preferences I had regarding various topics, including race, weight, guns, and the like.  Taking these IAT tests is an effective and fun way to learn about yourself and to contribute to Harvard’s research project at the same time.

Incidentally, Derek Ham graduated from Hampton University the year I started working there. He went on to earn a Master’s from Harvard, then later teach alongside me at Hampton U. He is now earning a PhD in “Design and Computation” at MIT.

Derek is an African American male pushing the boundaries of knowledge and success on behalf of us all. My own work is inspired every day by Derek and his fellow Hamptonians.

Yes, I benefit from white privilege. But I’m glad to say that my parents passed along smart values. I remember being deeply aware of this privilege and letting it guide my behavior from the age of ten.

Since then, I’ve worked to help “level the playing field” whenever I can.

And I hope you will, too.

 

 

 

Energy Cube — Build Day

Fionnuala advising an Energy Cube team.

Fionnuala advising an Energy Cube team.

Nowadays when you arrive in DIT’s four-year engineering program, you will complete three group-based design projects prior to selecting a specific engineering major: a bridge design project (to familiarize you with civil and structural engineering), a RoboSumo project (to learn about robotics, electrical, and electronic engineering, and programming), and an “Energy Cube” project (as an introduction to mechanical, product, and building services engineering).

The Energy Cube project is currently coordinated by a diverse and multi-disciplinary group of teachers. Fionnuala Farrell is a product design and manufacturing engineer, John Nolan is an expert in engineering drawing, and Micheal O’Flaherty is a building services engineer. 

This team built a geodesic dome for their Energy Cube.

This team built a geodesic dome for their Energy Cube.

I’ve been assisting them and contributing the perspective of an architect. I’m not involved in grading, since I’m interviewing some of the students for my research, but I attend classes to better understand what it’s like to learn and teach engineering. 

Fortunately, I know how to do all the parts involved in this project: designing buildings, identifying client needs, defining product evaluation criteria, collaborating, calculating volumes, making scale translations, predicting thermal performance using mathematical calculations, designing the lighting scheme, building models, testing performance, keeping records, and presenting work in writing as well as verbally.

For the students, though, this combination is a tall order!  They have a total of six sessions, four hours each (on Friday afternoons!?!!) to design, build, test, and present their Energy Cubes. Whew!

Lecturers Fionnuala Farrell, John Nolan, and Michael O'Flaherty surveying results of "the build."

Lecturers Fionnuala Farrell, John Nolan, and Micheal O’Flaherty surveying results of “the build.”

Moreover, they are working in assigned (rather than self-selected) groups of four. Learning to work with strangers isn’t always easy. They’ve done an admirable job.

Our second of four sets of students will test their cubes later today. I’ve posted photos of what the Energy Cube build looked like last week.

Raising Fellows

Pam and Don at the countdown, dotting every i and crossing every t.

Pam and Don at the countdown, aligning all the parts one last time. Attention to detail can make a world of difference.

My loft apartment is buzzing with activity. Fortunately, Prof/Dr Pam Eddy (my former dissertation advisor) arrived just in time to help with a big project.

Last night my flat-mate, Don, was in the final stretch of submitting a grant application for a prestigious fellowship. Don, Pam, and I had all hands on deck.

Winning these prestigious fellowship requires rigor, passion, and attention to detail. It often requires applying multiple years and continually refining one’s approach. The difference between winning and losing often comes down to how much critique an applicant can gather and address (plus more than a pinch of luck!).

All this, Don well knows. And he’s giving it all he’s got.

For more than a decade Don has methodically established a network of contacts across Ireland. He has continually generated new understanding of the issues immigrant children face in coming to Ireland.

With years of preparation under his belt, Don is well poised to research how Nigerian children who have immigrated to Ireland establish a sense of identity — how they come to feel they belong here, how they deal with being different, and what they think it means to be or become Irish, for instance. And, with a spike in immigration to Ireland underway, the time is ripe for Don’s study.

As soon as Pam arrived in town Sunday, we headed out for coffee with a Professor Emerita from William and Mary who is traveling in Ireland, Dr. Dorothy Finnegan.

As soon as Pam arrived in town Sunday, we headed out for coffee with a Professor Emerita from William and Mary who was traveling in Ireland, Dr. Dorothy Finnegan. Dot taught me in a class on Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives and another in Comparative International Education.

What Don learns can potentially help teachers deliver content more effectively in their increasingly-diverse classrooms. It can also help Irish policy makers understand issues that are central in education today.

A couple weeks ago, Don arrived for a three-month stint to collect interview data at a primary school in the nearby district of Tallaght. I had a spare room in my place just the right size for an up-and-coming research fellow.

Don and I first met at one of the 2012 photography events sponsored on my behalf by Fulbright Ireland and the University of Notre Dame’s center in Dublin. I’ve been fascinated by his topic and his emerging findings ever since.

Since his arrival this year, Don and I have convened daily to discuss our research projects. These informal conversations help us both because we are both researching diversity, education, and identity and we are both building qualitative research skills.

Thankfully, I have an excellent mentor in Pam Eddy. And thankfully, she arrived for a visit just in time to help put the final touches on Don’s grant application.

It takes a village, I think they say, to raise a fellow!

A few days before Pam’s arrival, I’d had the chance to publicly thank the team who helped carry my Marie Curie fellowship application across the finish line.  Dr Jennifer Brennan, Jean Cahill, Dr Marek Rebow, and Dr Nancy Stenson went above and beyond for me and my project — editing, polishing, critiquing and lending ideas. I could not have won the EU’s International Incoming Fellowship without them! And the reference letters from Colleen Dube, Dr Mike Murphy, and Dr Pam Eddy helped seal the deal!

I’m grateful that these knowledgable mentors are willing to share their time and energy with emerging researchers like Don and me!

I also presented at last week's seminar for researchers on Bolton Street who are members of CREATE (Contributions to Research in Engineering and Applied Technology Research).

I also presented at last week’s seminar for CREATE (Contributions to Research in Engineering and Applied Technology Research). Our research group is lead by Dr. Brian Bowe.

Framing My View

Over time, various artists have provided layers of meanings along this street in Kilkenny, Ireland. Small windows in the graveyard painting let viewers select their own vantage points and help them view what's happening on the other side of the wall. The photographer (Frank Daly) selected his own frame of reference, capturing an entertaining yet  chilling portrayal of the phenomenon of Western burial.

Over time, various artists have provided layers of meanings along this street in Kilkenny, Ireland. Small windows in the graveyard painting let viewers select their own vantage points and help them view what’s happening on the other side of the wall. The photographer (Frank Daly) selected his own frame of reference, capturing an entertaining yet chilling portrayal of the phenomenon of Western burial.

Phenomenology and constructionism are two outlooks for understanding and describing human experience in ways that can help humans (especially educators, designers, and makers) shape a better/more purposeful future. They are well aligned with engineering and architecture because both paradigms both have to do with human creation. Without human creation, architecture and engineering are not possible. In this blog, I’m attempting to summarize my understanding of the two in a way that might be of use to other researchers.

Phenomenology is a philosophy as well as a method of doing research. It focuses on experiences people have, and on how individuals understand and describe their experiences. Education researchers have been working hard to refine this method of research, although it is still in its infancy as a research methodology. On the other hand, phenomenology has been central to architectural thought since at least the mid 1900s.

Today, I am striving to understand distinctions and techniques involved with three specific variants of phenomenology: transcendental phenomenology, hermeneutic/interpretive phenomenology, and phenomenography. These differ in how they view objectivity and subjectivity, and this aspect intrigues me.

Construction is a fundamental aspect of architecture, architectural design, and architectural education. Two distinct paradigms deal explicitly with “construction,” although I see quite a bit of overlap between the two, so I’m placing them under a common heading.

These two construction-related outlooks are called constructivism and social constructionism.

The book Qualitative Research: The Essential Guide to Theory and Practice, written by Maggi Savin-Baden and Claire Howell Major (2013), is helping me better understand the distinctions between these two ways of thinking about and conceptualizing being, knowing, and researching.

I’ll attempt to explain what I’ve found using their book and integrating it into what I learned in school: 

Constructivism is the more subjective of the two construction-oriented paradigms. This paradigm asserts that knowledge exists in the human mind and that researchers can understand it by “unpacking individual experiences” (Savin-Baden & Major, p. 56). “Reality,” in this view, is what individuals think it is. To understand the world, we (as educators, architects, and/or researchers) need to assess how individuals know, understand, and indeed construct the world in their minds.

Constructionism is a more collective. This paradigm is often referred to as “social constructionism” and it posits, “Reality and knowledge are socially constructed” (p. 56). In this view, groups of people decide collectively – and quite often unconsciously – what things (phenomena, people, places, ideas, etc.) they will recognize and how they will understand and name them. In inverse fashion, groups also decide what things they will not see/understand/name. Researchers who adopt this way of seeing the world study how groups of people collectively see/interpret/create/construct the world around them. Today, constructionism appears in only in a few publications on engineering education (specifically, on teaching robotics or materials engineering).

I’ve been planning to use phenomenology in my upcoming work, yet I believe constructionism also hold great value for engineering education research. Perhaps I’ll help introduce this way of seeing to the EER community.

“Objectively” Speaking

Today, those of us doing qualitative research about the education of engineers are enlarging the vocabulary of the engineering community, which has — by and large — thought of research as an objective, fact-finding, technical science.

As Frank Daly commented on an earlier post, engineers are taught to think objectively. Most of the profession has embraced straightforward cause-and-effect logic. This appears to be the case worldwide.

Among researchers, this way of thinking is known as “positivism.” It assumes that there are identifiable facts that stand outside the realm of human intention.

Planning for Sustainability class I conducted at The College of William and Mary.

Discussing water quality in the Planning for Sustainability class I conducted at The College of William and Mary.

Even today, when most people think of research, they imagine test tubes and petri dishes, statistical charts and mathematical equations. They think that science and technology are strictly fact-based.

However, there’s much to be gained by expanding that view — and to learning from what people know, perceive, and experience.

Today, qualitative researchers are designing and describing new ways to conceive of knowledge, new ways to see and explain “things” that happen in the world. They have created many new methods for viewing, studying, and describing phenomena.  Each method fits a specific way of seeing and understanding the world. Each set of ideas about how things work can be called a “paradigm,” and each paradigm filters what various groups of people know and how they come to know it.

Definition of paradigm.

Definition of paradigm.

Everyone uses paradigms (which are sometime also called schemas), although many people are not familiar with the terms and most are not even aware that they have adopted one specific set of ideas without considering alternatives.

That’s like never considering that you could fry, or bake, or broil, or grill fish. Or even eat it raw. Imagine being stuck in just one way of doing things! Yet most of us are when it comes to philosophical ideas, conceptions of knowledge, and how to learn.

By using qualitative methods to study events and engineering-related phenomena, engineering education researchers like myself are helping engineers see things that their traditional way of seeing things masked.

Definition of schema.

Definition of schema.

Steven Feldman of Case Western Reserve University helped do this at NASA. Following the Challenger disaster, Feldman assessed NASA’s organizational culture and he published his findings in 2004. He found evidence that the shared philosophy within NASA led to calamity. There was a pervasive belief in objectivity, fact, and pure physical science. It led people to ignore important issues and it got in the way of success. Employees were so focused on quantitative data that they failed to see gaping holes in their problem-solving structures. He, and others like Zingale and Hummel (2012), have insisted that NASA and other organizations can benefit from qualitative research. These experts want qualitative research to be conducted both by and about NASA. Although the Space Administration studies phenomena, it has been doing so without using qualitative methods, like phenomenology, that could yield significant findings.

I’ll explain some basics of phenomenology as a way of seeing, analyzing, and understanding the world, in an upcoming blog.

Making Videos, Making Fairs

Producing robot-building events requires warp-speed learning.  In just the past few days, helping with a Dublin Maker event, I learned:

  • to quickly make and post educational videos
  • to setup and run a RoboSlam educational booth
  • how to teach teenty-tiny tots to build robots
  • what “Makers” are, what they do, and how they talk (it’s a whole new language to me!)
  • about 3-D printing and how to build (and even invent) your own machines using laser cutters and 3-D printers

I’ve posted links to two videos I made as well as some photos from last Saturday’s Dublin Maker event.

Here’s the edited video we posted to introduce RoboSlam.com to website visitors.  I am really quite proud of it!

Here’s the short promo video we posted earlier last week to advertise the fair:

I wish I could convey the excitement of seeing little four and six year old girls build their first robots… and tiny little boys jump up and down with glee as they discover the difference between remote-controlled and autonomous robots!

Although I captured some behind-the-scenes images of set up and take down with my still cameras (posted below) they don’t come anywhere close to showing what it was like to be there.  Fortunately, I was able to capture some video of the kids building and operating robots so we can learn from it and create even better programs in the future!

 

TV News Feature

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yesterday, RTE aired a piece on RoboSlam that features Ted Burke (I previously blogged about the filming).

The piece describes preparations for the Dublin Make event, to be held Saturday, July 26 on the grounds of Trinity College.  The news segment is available to view for seven days.

Click

http://www.rte.ie/news/player/one-news/2014/0724/#page=3

and then drag the slider to 23:12.  Getting to it takes a bit of effort since the internet version sometimes opens with commercials, but it’s a very cool and fun news pieces.

Great news work by Sinead Morris!

 

I’ve also found announcements about the Marie Curie fellowship in DIT’s spring Research News magazine (see pages 34-35) and on The College of William and Mary’s School of Education Alumni News webpage.

 
DIT Research News  http://www.dit.ie/media/ditresearchenterprise/dredocuments/Research%20news%20Vol%207.1.pdf

DIT Research News feature, see pages 34-

WM SOE almuni page https://education.wm.edu/news/alumninews/chance-2014.php

W&M School of Education alumni page announcement

Vantage Points

What you see depends upon where and how you look....

What you see depends upon where and how you look….

In engineering, the teaching-from-the-podium-by-manual-and-textbook approach simply isn’t working.  It’s not attracting enough students to study engineering.  It’s not engaging and fascinating enough of them.  It’s not spurring their creative thinking skills in enough ways.

I’m clearly not the only one who has noticed this.  The National Science Foundation and oodles of engineering scholars agree.  And now that the engineering profession — as a group of individuals bound by common knowledge, education, and language — has come to acknowledge these shortcomings, it is time to address the problems head-on.

Fergus Whelan commented that I need to think outside this box....  Thanks to Frank Daly for the fabulous photo.

Not liking to be trapped inside the box….

Making such a change is difficult.  It’s messy and complex.  It requires thinking outside the vocabulary and methods that created the profession in the first place. In line with the old cliché: engineering has to starting thinking outside its own box.  Most people today agree: We need engineers to see and think in new ways.  And indeed, many teachers are:

  • working to prompt the needed type of thinking in engineering
  • testing new teaching methods
  • working to evaluate results

I am one of them.

I have two sets of skills that I am hoping can help in positive ways.  First, I’m an architect and seasoned educator.  Second, I’m an education researcher.  From this vantage point, I see that engineering (programs and pedagogies) can benefit from what architecture programs do.

The architecture profession, for instance, has always used hands-on teaching.  Architecture schools are full of students and full of creative energy.  Architecture and engineering aren’t so different, yet our ideas about what they “are” differ, and the way they are taught differs as well

“Engineering,” I insist, can benefit from design thinking, from techniques used in design education, and from sharing ideas with architects as well.  Upcoming blogs will explain how.


Below is a little gallery of recent research activities, including a short promo video (shot with my iPad in a single take) for our RoboSlam exhibit this weekend’s Dublin Maker event.