Books...
Matt Jadud
Books. Sadly, they need to be ordered.
I've requested review copies of two texts just now:
and
http://www.amazon.com/Electronics-Self-Teaching-Guide-Teaching-Guides/dp/0470289619/ref=pd_sim_b_6
I'd like to see what they look like.
As Jan pointed out to me (and bears repeating): a good text
complements/drives a course, while a poor choice (i.e. one that is
expensive and rarely used) will upset the students (rightfully so).
Technically, book orders would have been due some time ago... but, in
this case, we'll take a little bit of time to kick things around. The
question essentially becomes "how much material will we have in hand,
and how much are we relying on from other sources?" My assumption is
that we'll want resources that we don't have to write, so that new
material can complement the learning, not drive all of it. (We don't
have *that* much time, I don't think.) Given sources Mel linked to
before, and things like
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/
I suspect we have a lot of resources available... but, we don't know
what they all are.
Hm. We need "electronics resource gathering monkeys" to go out and
come up with a huge links of learning resources for electronics,
whether those be 1) prospective texts, 2) websites, 3) videos, etc.
Does anyone have any access to Minons of Great Awesomeness?
(I've noticed that my emails of late are not as verbose as they used
to be... I think I must be rushed for time or something...)
Cheers,
Matt
Mel Chua
> write, so that new material can complement the learning, not drive
> all of it. (We don't have *that* much time, I don't think.)
Huge +1 on this. Spend summer testing and patching materials, not making
them.
> Hm. We need "electronics resource gathering monkeys" to go out and
> come up with a huge links of learning resources for electronics,
> whether those be 1) prospective texts, 2) websites, 3) videos, etc.
> Does anyone have any access to Minons of Great Awesomeness?
Potentially, after the semester ends (first week of May, here). If we
have little job descriptions and can offer independent study credit (I
can probably talk with Robin and make the latter happen) there are some
grad students in my department who are into ECE curriculum design and
might be interested enough to spend an intense week (1-credit's worth of
work) doing that sort of thing. I think I can pitch this sort of thing
well; will probe for interest.
> I suspect we have a lot of resources available... but, we don't know
> what they all are.
So, let's back up -- Matt, do you have learning objectives for the first
year's curriculum already? (Or is that task #1?) How many contact/lab
hours and how many out-of-class homework hours are we looking at in
order to accomplish them, over how many weeks (and semesters)?
--Mel "asking the stupid questions" Chua
Jan
Schultz, M.E. (2011). Grob’s Basic Electronics. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Mel Chua
> ture/dp/1558607358/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1333378168&sr=1-6
Side notes on this particular book:
* I've got it (actually, I think Sebastian has my copy at Olin)
* It's pretty awesome, and is probably part of the reason I actually
passed my final year of ECE classes.
* Was easier for me to understand than The Art of Electronics, but may
be worth doing a side-by-side comparison of the two books
* I remember it being fairly mathy-theoretical (as opposed to "hey kids,
get some components and stuff them together, whoa, you've made a
thing!") BUT good if we're going to use it as "the theoretical resource"
to supplement/explain hands-on stuff.
* I think one of the authors may have been the professor of an Olin
professor... possibly Oscar, as I think he was the one who recommended
this book to me in the first place. So there may be an
interesting/useful connection there, if we look into this and decide
it's a book we want to look into more deeply.
Have never seen the other book before. I'd also try to find, perhaps,
some books on electronics teardowns/disassembly; I saw some used ones at
Powell's in Portland but cannot for the life of me remember their
titles. Or oddball books like "<thing> for the Evil Scientist" or Make:
compendiums or whatnot.
I really, really, really ought to write my thesis papers now.
--Mel
Mel Chua
> sorts of resources are in here: http://compcraft.olin.edu/
Have I mentioned how jealous I am of you right now? ;) I have all sorts
of questions about what some of the items on this syllabus mean
("food-based construction kit"?) but that can come later.
I'm also curious how Eagle is taught -- because (to my shame) I have
never used Eagle and would really like to learn. I request a
crash-course this summer, and would like to actually lay out a PCB
myself this summer and hold it in my hands. I've never done that.
> (it's the class I mentioned that I'm taking right now, and I could see
> some relevant, albeit more nontraditional, materials there)
How much of a background in electronics (and for that matter,
programming) does this course assume? I see some of the exercises as
being fascinating diving-off points for a class, but figure we may need
to back-fill a bunch of the material if this is a class students are
taking during their first semester in college (and they haven't had
prior exposure to electronics or programming before). I wonder if there
is a way to integrate this into the craft courses at Berea somehow.
Electronic textiles? Robot mechanisms fabricated in woodshop?
Sebastian Dziallas
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 12:05, Mel Chua<m...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>> Have never seen the other book before. I'd also try to find, perhaps, some
>> books on electronics teardowns/disassembly; I saw some used ones at Powell's
>> in Portland but cannot for the life of me remember their titles. Or oddball
>> books like "<thing> for the Evil Scientist" or Make: compendiums or whatnot.
>
> theory-y resource that isn't too expensive. I think Make: Electronics,
> the Radio Shack/Forrest Mims type material is something that might
> work as well... I think, the question comes down to "how much material
> are we going to generate?" We don't want to do everything from scratch
> (I don't think), as that is too tall an order for one summer. I think.
> (Well, it depends... but, if the goal is to write a book/mixed-media
> compendium, then that has to be the goal from Day One.)
I'm in class right now, so this is short, but I need to go and look what
sorts of resources are in here: http://compcraft.olin.edu/
(it's the class I mentioned that I'm taking right now, and I could see
some relevant, albeit more nontraditional, materials there)
-s
Matt Jadud
> books on electronics teardowns/disassembly; I saw some used ones at Powell's
> in Portland but cannot for the life of me remember their titles. Or oddball
> books like "<thing> for the Evil Scientist" or Make: compendiums or whatnot.
The thing I'd like to get a handle on is what would make a good
theory-y resource that isn't too expensive. I think Make: Electronics,
the Radio Shack/Forrest Mims type material is something that might
work as well... I think, the question comes down to "how much material
are we going to generate?" We don't want to do everything from scratch
(I don't think), as that is too tall an order for one summer. I think.
(Well, it depends... but, if the goal is to write a book/mixed-media
compendium, then that has to be the goal from Day One.)
> I really, really, really ought to write my thesis papers now.
Yes, you should.
Cheers,
M
Jan
Mel Chua
> On the appropriate level of mathematical underpinnings...
> I think theory is important, but the mathematical prerequisite for the
> course is only college algebra...
> Basic trig could be okay. Calculus would not be okay.
Thanks, Jan -- that helps a lot. Is it fair to assume that the students
who'll be taking the class will largely be first-year students? Or will
it be more mixed-year? What classes will they typically be taking in
parallel?
Also, what's the expected size of this class? I'm mostly trying to get a
better picture of our audience (although I suspect a lot of it we'll
figure out way faster in person when we show up on campus this June!)
--Mel
Matt Jadud
> Thanks, Jan -- that helps a lot. Is it fair to assume that the students
> who'll be taking the class will largely be first-year students? Or will it
> be more mixed-year? What classes will they typically be taking in parallel?
Good questions. My design target persona would be a first-year student
comfortable with algebra, but who ultimately wasn't 100% confident
about their trig.
In terms of students taking it: they were clearly from a variety of
backgrounds. There was a biology major, students majoring in tech,
students majoring in comp sci... so, they aren't necessarily in the
course because they *want* to be. (The Tech/CS students probably
*want* to be, but the Bio student I met seemed to imply it was more of
a requirement of some sort.)
So, as always, my design target is to assume the student doesn't
necessarily want to be there, and it is my job to deliver a learning
experience that they never want to miss, because of the high (and
obviously apparent) value of the time spent in and out of class on the
material. (Yeah, magic, I know.)
> Also, what's the expected size of this class? I'm mostly trying to get a
> better picture of our audience (although I suspect a lot of it we'll figure
> out way faster in person when we show up on campus this June!)
My impression from the spring offering was around 15-20. If it follows
the pattern of other courses I've taught, the fall offering might be a
bit larger (20-25).
--
Re: Eagle... one target floating in my mind is that they all design
and make a small board of some sort. Or, add to an existing board, so
they see some things done, and add to it. This could be a shield for
an Arduino (an H-bridge circuit, perhaps?), a simple temperature
sensor (perhaps as part of a distributed thermostat project?), or some
other hands-on/craft component that ties into either robotics,
environmental/home sensing, or home automation.
Again, early-stage/vague brainstorms, but yes, I'd like some physical
craft, and thinking in terms of a two-course sequence, getting them
into something like Eagle (and/or thinking towards circuit
simulation...) other packages is a good idea.
To that end, I wonder if Fritzing is "good enough" for a first course?
Cheers,
M
Jan
> Is it fair to assume that the students who'll be taking the class will largely be first-year students? Or will it be more mixed-year?
Not really first-years. Usually sophomores perhaps, but some of every other class.
> What classes will they typically be taking in parallel?
No way to know... too many other variables.
> Also, what's the expected size of this class?
The last four years of data give the average size of 20.9 with a range of 16-23.
> My design target persona would be a first-year student comfortable with algebra, but who ultimately wasn't 100% confident about their trig.
Good.
> The Tech/CS students probably *want* to be, but the Bio student I met seemed to imply it was more of a requirement of some sort.
Yes, the course is one way to satisfy a college-wide "math" requirement called "practical reasoning-quantitative," but I think most students are CS or TEC majors.
> So, as always, my design target is to assume the student doesn't necessarily want to be there, and it is my job to deliver a learning experience that they
> never want to miss, because of the high (and obviously apparent) value of the time spent in and out of class on the material. (Yeah, magic, I know.)
Indeed!! EXCELLENT!!!
> To that end, I wonder if Fritzing is "good enough" for a first course?
That is entirely up to you... :)
Jan
On Monday, April 2, 2012 11:42:51 AM UTC-4, Mel Chua wrote:
Sebastian Dziallas
> Re: Eagle... one target floating in my mind is that they all design
> and make a small board of some sort. Or, add to an existing board, so
> they see some things done, and add to it. This could be a shield for
> an Arduino (an H-bridge circuit, perhaps?), a simple temperature
> sensor (perhaps as part of a distributed thermostat project?), or some
> other hands-on/craft component that ties into either robotics,
> environmental/home sensing, or home automation.
Being someone who worked on a Design Nature project at Olin where we
used a micro-controller ended up implementing a sketchy H-bridge on an
ordinary breadboard to drive the motors, I could see quite some appeal
there.
This is more of a gut feel than anything else. It's been a long day.
-s
Matt Jadud
> Being someone who worked on a Design Nature project at Olin where we used a
> micro-controller ended up implementing a sketchy H-bridge on an ordinary
> breadboard to drive the motors, I could see quite some appeal there.
>
> This is more of a gut feel than anything else. It's been a long day.
My idea was in that category: gut feeling.
I'm thinking that it would be nice if projects/units consistently had a
Apply -> Knowledge/Content
pattern, and over the course of two or three units we saw a larger
Synthesis -> Analysis / Evaluation
Component. (Or, visa versa.) By this, I mean that we drive content
learning through application, and we use creative, problem-based
learning on a slightly longer arch to motivate critical analysis and
evaluation. (Mel mentioned Bloom, which is a crude hammer, but it
works well enough for framing discussion at this stage.)
But, yes, still a brainstorm/gut feeling.
Cheers,
M
Jesse Melhuish
Mel Chua
> either need to be found in one book, or multiple resources need to be
> found that exemplify either theory or practice that follow easily
> with one another in such a way that I will not simply result to
> googling something before opening the book.
I don't disagree with this, but also think that being able to synthesize
one's own learning from a patchwork of different sources is a valuable
skill to pick up. Good hackers can hack with a bricolage of mental
concepts just as fluently as they can with physical components. So:
carefully curated/scaffolded/guided resources? Sure. All-in-one
ready-made resource? Not a holy grail in my eyes. But you're the ones
who'll be taking the classes, so ultimately your learning should be the
gauge that counts. :)
Also, I forgot about
http://www.amazon.com/Electronic-Devices-Frustration-Mountains-Engineering/dp/0316368075
-- I lent my copy to one of my ECE classmates (Eric Gallimore) and... as
far as I'm concerned, it's his now, but I need another copy, so I just
ordered it. Will read and bring to Berea this June. I remember rejoicing
over this book when it first fell into my hands, and that it made
op-amps make sense for the first time, but not much else.
--Mel
Jesse Melhuish
Jesse Melhuish
On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 10:29:09 PM UTC-4, Mel Chua wrote:
Jan
> and too many resources could make a difficult subject even harder for those students.
Matt Jadud
> without theory. The point is that from a student's standpoint, I feel that
> the two either need to be found in one book, or multiple resources need to
> be found that exemplify either theory or practice that follow easily with
> one another in such a way that I will not simply result to googling
> something before opening the book. As a final note, a friend of mine has
Like Mel, I agree. As a twist on what she said, I'd say that a good
classroom experience should
1. Help you synthesize from the materials being used, and
2. Prepare you to go on and more efficiently/effectively synthesize
new material in the future.
The latter is difficult to measure... that is, students will comment
on how effectively you do #1, and will only comment on #2 at the 5- or
10-year reunion. :)
But, yes, I agree. What we'll be wrestling with (and may, or may not,
get right the first time 'round) is what combination of resources are:
1. Affordable and
2. Effective
for supporting this first course? Maybe I just love the hand-drawn
material, but I think the Forrest Mims text is wonderful. I need to
spend more time with it for content... I think it's affordable, and it
serves as a good "jumping off point." That is, it might help start to
frame some hands-on experience, and then there needs to be more
"depth" somewhere for digging into the underlying theory. Whether a
book is *necessary* for that, I don't know. I suspect, though, that
some kind of resource or organized collection of resources (online or
otherwise) is a necessary thing.
Of course, there's a whole "cart before horse" problem here: we have
to identify resources, but we haven't really engaged in design yet...
we're doing a few different things in parallel, some earlier than I
might like, but that's just a reality of "diving in" and having to get
started for next fall.
> an old how-to type book sitting on a shelf that he informed me taught him
> everything he knows about electronics, and I will ask him for the title.
That would be cool. Thank you.
Jesse, are you at Berea? If not, how did you find the group? (I'm just
curious. Welcome, BTW!)
Cheers,
Matt
Matt Jadud
> followed by a reading quiz. Very recently Jesse paid me a very
> cool retrospective sideways complement on the structure of that C++ course.
This just answered my question about where Jesse is geographically located. :)
> tell me that he now sees how the outside of class readings followed by those
> daily quizzes as a structure which really helped him to learn. I do not use
> the exercises in that C++ book at all, so in that course the text is used
And, this is the structure that I think we'll be designing to for the
electronics course. I did the same thing this term, and I think the
students have responded very well to the regular quiz process... but,
that's because I made sure they understood that the quizzing was part
of the learning, not a "me vs. them" process that students often see
evaluation as being.
And, that's kinda funny... the popularity of that book is going to
skyrocket---I just ordered my copy...
I've got desk copies coming of the two other books I mentioned
(yesterday?). If anyone has any suggestions or ideas re: texts that
might be of interest in the course, let me know, and I'll get those in
motion, too.
Jesse, Danny... if either of you have opinions on the kinds of
resources that might be interesting/valuable to have, do kick them
around here.
Cheers,
Matt
Jan
I have just read a few of the opening pages, but it uses a build-first philosophy and has a very enjoyable irreverent tone. It might be promising...
Matt Jadud
> I have just read a few of the opening pages, but it uses a build-first
> philosophy and has a very enjoyable irreverent tone. It might be
> promising...
> I will be very interested in hearing what Matt thinks of it...
I need to spend more time with it. It seems to become "OP AMPS! OP
AMPS! OP AMPS!" (as in "TRACTORS! TRACTORS! TRACTORS!") very quickly.
It needs a longer sit-down, though... that was my flip-through
impression...
Cheers,
Matt
Jan
>. It seems to become "OP AMPS! OP AMPS! OP AMPS!" (as in "TRACTORS! TRACTORS! TRACTORS!") very quickly.
Mel Chua
Got my copy yesterday and spent dinnertime flipping through it and
chuckling. Its age (nearly 40!) definitely comes through in the
discussions about equipment (and the inclusion of chapter 5 on analog
computers -- which I personally found to be fascinating), and it is very
much a "oh my gosh, OP AMPS are AMAZING!" book. (I first encountered
this book while TAing an "OP AMPS ARE AMAZING!" class, so perhaps I
don't mind that focus quite as much.)
I enjoyed the writing style and the opening discussion of RC circuits
quite a bit, and their description of their pedagogy seemed to fit the
ethos we're going for: "You want to build stuff yesterday, so first
we'll get your hands dirty building Something That Works, even if you
don't understand it theoretically yet. Once you've got something
working, we'll explain what's going on." They also have a lot of "how to
think about learning" asides I appreciated -- "you can skip to chapter N
now if you don't care about this and come back to it later," and "put
down the book and build this now!" and "you're the best judge of how you
learn" pokes at just the right places for me.
It's definitely on the non-politically-correct side of irreverence in a
few places. The book touts op-amps as "the greatest thing since the
contraceptive pill" -- which made me laugh, but also wonder how much we
should worry about being prudish. The book was written for grad students
and professors, so that explains the tone and also the lack of
content-coverage-deathmarching.
So: maybe have as a reference copy in the library, and photocopy the
first chapter as one intro to circuits?
--Mel
Jan
Mel Chua
> right there on page 1.
> Maybe this is standard fair--what do I know?
In modern-day engineering textbooks given out to large numbers of
undergrads, nope.
On the internet and among teenagers trying to slog through those
modern-day engineering textbooks... I've heard it before. I mean, it
*is* memorable. Just... really want to come up with a better acronym,
though.
--Mel
Matt Jadud
>> Indeed! "Bad Boys Rape Our Young Girls, But Violet Gives Willingly"
>> right there on page 1.
>> Maybe this is standard fair--what do I know?
My skimming did not start on page one.
I'm not excited about the text as a resource, as it has a lot of
"you'll understand this later" kind of material. I really don't like
"we'll understand this later" in my classroom if I can at all avoid
it. A book that spends a few chapters saying "just read and absorb all
of this kinda-sorta stuff about electronics" does not really make me
happy.
There may be material that can be used and re-contexted, but probably
not directly from the text. (Meaning, not something I'd require
students to buy, and probably not something that can be photocopied
and just handed out to support a lab.)
Cheers,
Matt