Is there a cost? A critical reflection of TLT Symposium

As I continue to turn over the ideas and technology presented at the Teaching and Learning with Technology (TLT) symposium, I always have some point of concern. The keynote speaker gave the traits of "sticky" ideas, among them being simple, unexpected and concrete(sensory). My concern is rooted in technology magnifying the two latter, potentially at the detriment of the first. In other words, it seems that technology main be applied and cause shock and ah without bringing the learner to question. The questioning or huh moment as the keynote phrased it, is why unexpected is listed as a trait. Also, in trying to make an idea concrete by not only using sensory language but engaging multiple senses with multimedia or virtual reality(a favorite in the innovation challenge) is there not a risk of loosing the learner to sensory overload? In a sense, taking in all the details of the trees while missing the forest which is that learning goal we should be focused on helping our students achieve.

To clarify, I am not against integration of technology into teaching environments. I am merely cautioning that, as with all things, it can be mis- or over-applied producing unwanted effects. Most of the ideas presented in the innovation challenge as given in 5 min showed great potential to fall into the pitfalls mentioned above. This may be due merely to the brevity of the presentations not allowing for the full rational design to be articulated. There were technologies showed cased that touched on this idea of being careful and intentional in technology application. The first which comes to mind is the presentation on teaching design with addictive manufacturing (3-D printing). During the discussion of the learning goals for the 3-D printing courses at different levels (freshmen, upperclassmen and graduate students), the speaker made it clear that he needs to help students to see a 3-D printer as a manufacturing tool and active research area, not just a novel piece of tech. for printing figurines. Thus, he recognizes the ah and glitz of 3-D printing, but works to guide his students past that to learn its practical applicability in design as well as its limitations. This example speaks to the awareness of pitfalls mentioned above and intentionally structuring the course to avoid them.    

Syllabus generation with engineering design

The generation of the first draft of the syllabus was straight forward following the progression of course design that was focused on in class. In a more general sense, it is the same development path as used for any design work (being a chemical engineer, chemical process design comes to mind). It starts at the highest level with defining the purpose of the design. In the case of a syllabus that is the goal of the course, for an industrial process it is the opportunity and input/output(I/O) mass balance.

                Once the purpose is defined, the design process follows a logical descent to greater levels of detail. For chemical process design, from the I/O comes the definition of unit operations (reactors, mixers and separators) needed to convert the inputs into desired outputs.  Then the units are further defined as a specific type, e.g. A/B distillation column, fluidized bed jacketed reactor, hammermill, etc. The cascade continues further to fine details such as specific location of everything down to check valves and wiring.

                Syllabus generation has a similar flow, with the objectives taking the place of unit definition. Both take the purpose and give it an observable structure. The structure is further specified by deciding how the structure will be recognized. Recognition or measurement of objectives are via assessment and unit operations through their specific types.

                After this point, the process takes a less sequential route as the fine details are generated. Compiled process designs are submitted for review as was our syllabi. It was interesting that both short and deep peer-reviews addressed the same areas for improvement in my syllabus. The peer review was helpful in seeing where further clarity and details were required. It is often difficult to see those areas oneself by virtue of being its creator, one knows the whole plan.

Student Introduction: Katie Hirl, PhD candidate in Agricultural and Biological Engineering

Good day all, 

I am a Midwest girl drawn out east to attempt a PhD in agricultural and biological engineering with the goal of teaching engineering. Originally raised in Minnesota, I fell in love with chemistry at a young age and later became acquainted with bioenergy systems from my Father who works in the field.  Upon graduation from high school, I decided to pursue engineering to work in the bioenergy industry. 

I spent my studies in rural Atchison, Kansas at Benedictine College working towards degrees in chemistry and chemical engineering. Two months in to my first semester I was asked to tutor a fellow engineer in chemistry. From that one request, I became a fixed engineering tutor for the rest of my studies and loved every minute of it….. even the ones spent helping my peers understand distillation columns at 1:00 am.

Engineering is a beautiful field because it takes the elegant complex workings of the natural world and applies them to solve problems. By my final semester last spring, I had found that helping someone else understand the beauty I had spent four years studying was even better than engineering work itself. 

Thus, I arrived at Penn State to take the next steps towards becoming a professor and switched to ag and bio engineering to spend my research time on a system called anaerobic digestion (my favorite renewable energy technology). I am taking AEE 530 to start gathering up and practice skills I will need to effectively facilitate learning. 

I look forward to working with all of you as we go through the semester to become better teachers in our varied disciplines.