Matthew Lammi posted this comment in regards to Quick Electronics 2010 Webinar Update. We thought well enough of it that it needed to be its own post. Editor

I enjoyed the discussion about the direction of electronics engineering technology. As we see declining enrollments in the EET programs, it forces us to question the status quo. Is the enrollment slippage due to advertising, curriculum, pedagogy, or relevancy? Though I think we could do a much better job with advertising our programs, I believe the most bang for our buck would be to improve our curriculum and pedagogy.

From my experience in industry, a high number of jobs in electronics or hardware are going by the way of IT and software. I do not advocate replacing electronics with IT programs. Why? A lot of IT can be learned just by experience or reading a text book to pass a test. Additionally, IT is only a conglomeration of man made rules that is perpetually archaic. However, the manipulation of nature (engineering) forms a lasting foundation. Engineering and electronics are best learned through a formal setting when augmented with lab sessions. Furthermore, students will find relevancy in their courses if there is a real world application. Students want to know how their iPod works and how satellite radios function. Electronics mingled with IT can explain that.

I advocate blending the programs together or at least incorporating IT into the EET curriculum. TCP/IP, coding, digital communications are continuing to increase. In the cell phone industry, there is a push to follow the TCP/IP protocol and hence create universal interoperability between carriers, equipment, PCs, PDAs, etc. EET students do not have to know the ins an outs of these protocols, but a general understanding would be helpful.

Can the manner in which we deliver our courses be improved? Let’s not forget that our field is not boring, we are at the center of high tech! Sometimes I think we become bogged down with all of the material that we have to cram into our courses. How can we add more? Instead of adding more, we can change our approach. Perhaps we could more easily motivate the students when we let them see the big picture first. Show how a diode is relevant and how they are used in power supplies. In our classes we probably already use this idea.

I envision us on the first day of class standing near the door with a power supply on the front table as the students file in. The supply is actually connected powering an mp3 player. The plastic casing is removed for the students to observe the circuitry inside. This can be augmented with a video camera projected on to the wall. Along side the video feed we have a block diagram of the circuitry displayed from a computer. This allows the student to see the connection between design and reality. The students are then asked how the power supply works. They are asked if this basic concept is used in other applications like computers, cars, satellites, etc. Then we tell the students we are going to build one of these and test it out. After the big picture is given we move into semiconductors and atomic theory often relating it back to the power supply; always making reference to the master plan or map.

Though this may seem pie in the sky, I believe the main objectives here are to keep the students engaged and help them retain what they are learning. I also understand that we have limited resources and time. However, I know we can make small, subtle changes to our pedagogy that will accumulate over time with a significant impact to our students.

Matthew Lammi

How many of you have the same thoughts? Different ideas? How do you want to envision your first day of classes?

Thanks Matthew for your comment/post!
Mark Viquesney