After going through the four rotations of groups for the SmartSurfaces class, I feel like I can finally give a summary of my experiences of being in the groups. I didn't want to discuss group dynamics until now because I had a hard time accurately "rating" people. I understand why we rate our groups each week, but it is so hard to rate people when you have nothing to compare it to. Looking back, I would have evaluated certain individuals entirely different. Also, there were weeks were certain individuals had more to bring to the table then others. So when I evaluate a teammate how can I say whether or not this person worked well as a teammate or kept us motivated? It's much harder to evaluate how well you worked with someone if you didn't actually do much with them. I think a better way to evaluate the group dynamics would be to ask questions that have to have a written response. Something like, 'What was a difficulty you encountered', 'How well do you think your team worked', 'What worked in your team', etc. etc.
Anyways, back to my experiences with the rotations. Sometimes I felt like myself and the other engineer in the group had less to bring to the table because all of our problems were about making something work. Instead of thinking about maximizing the efficiency, or calculating forces, or whatever, we just tried stuff until it worked. And I'm not saying this is a bad thing, I'm just saying being an engineer didn't add anything in particular to the group. Yes we have certain tendencies and we can program, but in general, we can't make the contraption with a laser cutter, or in the wood shop. Since all of the problems have been more towards the construction of things, I haven't felt like an important part. Yes we all brainstorm together, and yes we're all creatively collaborating, but when it comes down to it I don't know what we bring at this stage of the class. I know that for our final projects we will have more of an impact because we will want to maximize efficiencies, and research, and experiment etc.. However, at this time I feel like our skills are not being used. What I am doing now in the group is stuff I could have done without an engineering education.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Interesting post, Michelle, on many levels. A few comments:
ReplyDelete1) One of the things we are trying to show with this class is that anyone can learn to do anything (within bounds of reason).
2) Artists, designers, architects do not have to take programming or circuits courses - indeed, by most accounts, these areas are outside of their core competencies; these are areas where an engineer could contribute more... potentially.
3) There is still time and opportunity to learn how to use laser cutters, CNCs, rapid prototypers, etc. Indeed, that was part of the original intent - for everyone to stretch and learn new skills. We knew going into this that some students would have less experience with the various fabrication tools; that is why we advised people in the very beginning of the semester to make additional effort at getting trained at these hands-on skills by the shop staff in A&D and Architecture. Not totally fair, to be sure, but think of the benefits!
4) My thoughts of a more general nature on this subject:
Overall, the comment and discussion does speak somewhat to the kind of engineering education (or its perception?) being the norm these days. At what point did engineers stop being good at making things work? And at what point can an engineer (or any problem-solver) feel at peace with the fact that they are not comfortable making things work?
You could say that the whole arc of engineering progress is a process of post mortem analysis of why something failed (becoming increasingly complex and mathematical over time). We are all just just trying stuff until it works. I believe that knowledge - useful knowledge that sticks with you - comes about AFTER you get things to work. Then you can apply it to the next thing. Modern engineers do this in very sophisticated ways, with the aid of formulas, but the reality is that the vast majority of those formulas had been developed after some prior prediction didn't come true (i.e. something that wasn't supposed to break, actually broke).
The great fallacy of modern engineering education, in my opinion, is the elimination of history, the pretension that things didn't fail first. In short, DESIGN IS A (hands-on, iterative) PROCESS. This class, is very much a HANDS-ON design shop.
You and your readers may find this blog post interesting / inspiring:
http://www.randsinrepose.com/archives/2009/03/23/the_makers_of_things.html
I also recommend reading this book: ("The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by T.S. Kuhn)
http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-Thomas-Kuhn/dp/0226458083/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255364823&sr=8-1
Having said all that, I should note that the statements above (both mine and yours) are not uniformly applicable to all teams and all engineers in the class (or the engineering program at U of M). In the class, some try their hand at everything, perhaps finding areas of specialization later in the semester. Some find a useful niche very quickly. Regarding the greater engineering program here at U of M, we shouldn't lose sight of the various clubs and activities, including the Solar Car Team, the MClimber, various robotics classes, and other courses and pursuits that are very much hands-on.
ReplyDeleteIn short, I think this has as much to do with specifics of personalities, as it does with formal training. You (everyone) must find something they are good at, or become good at something that is of value. After all, how else do we even hope to make the world a better place?
Very interesting points. When choosing this class there were various obvious choices for wanting to join (cross-collaboration, helping the environment, being on the cutting edge etc.), but I feel that this design process is an even more valuable reason, and it also is something I would have never thought of. It reminds me a lot of like the book you recommended 'The art of start', and the idea of just doing something instead of writing and planning everything and getting bogged down by that. Looking back at what has been done over the past weeks from the sand to the heliotropic surface, the progress is baffling. I may have not directly been using my thermo or kinetics principles but, like Professor Marshall sent to me from Neil Gershenfeld, the Director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Center for Bits and Atoms (CBA),"Gershenfeld states the learning process for these students was driven by the demand for knowledge rather than the usual model which is driven by the supply of knowledge". I personally never had looked at this class in this fashion and I think it's right on, and also very refreshing to have a class like this. As you have mentioned above, this is not knocking U of M's engineering program or anything like that this is more of a bigger realization. I never have actually known what an engineer was "supposed to be" and at first in this class I didn't feel like I was "doing what an engineer was supposed to be doing"; however, I'm starting to understand that concentrating more on using my skills to do something good or do something I'm passionate about is what's it's all about. For me, something is finally clicking.
ReplyDelete