Modern Electronic Education

Mike,

First, I'm surprised that he still had an unassembled Heathkit, as they've been out of production for quite a while.

Next, I'm sorry that the teacher did not have more flexibility in realizing that in putting together a kit, the manual, if well written, will often have some theory of operation in it, and that the Dad involved might have been a ham (or professional) who was able to explain a lot of what they were doing as they spent real quality time building the kit.

Often doing something is the way to learn. You can read cook books all day long, and not know how to use a can opener. I would not be surprised to find out that the teacher had no specialized training in science, and that it was just another subject mandated in the schools lesson plans. Maybe the teacher uses a "4th grade science lesson plan" manual which is less creative than the kid's father. I'm disappointed by her attitude of putting down what the student had done without even looking into it.

Regards, Tim Schwartz Bristol Electronics

She might have been using the word "Heathkit" in a generic sense.

However, the teacher was startlingly ignorant and parochial.

How sad. I'd bet real money that any kid genuinely interested in electronics would learn much, much more from building something like a Heathkit with Dad, than independently doing a diorama or whatever. (I speak from experience, my kids have done so many dioramas, it's almost become an assembly-line thing with them.)

I recently showed my daughter a project in Nuts & Volts that "freezes" water droplets using strobed LED's. Now she's begging me to help her build one for her next science project. I'll probably do it, in spite of whatever her teacher at the time says, because I *know* she'll learn a lot.

IMO this teacher is not very impressive. Reminds me of a line by the late George Carlin:

"...somewhere out there is the world's worst doctor........and someone is seeing him tomorrow!"

Cheers.

It makes me angry that elementary schools have done such a poor job of teaching Step 1 WRT Science: For generations, Science classes have failed to define at the outset

**What is Science**.

The teacher was wrong for the strict *copy something out of the book* approach. That's kinda weak--but at least those are likely to be Science.

Go to the library. Look at the 500 section. THAT is Science. (e.g. 537 will contain Fundamentals of Electricity.) Now look at the 600 section. That is TECHNOLOGY. (e.g. 621.319 is about how to wire a house.) A willingness to conflate Science with Applied Science shows that you (and the kid) don't know what Science is.

A proper Science project will *start* with The Scientific Method. You will notice that a **Science** project will begin with a question that needs to be answered.

You will also notice that among the basics of The Scientific Method, "build" is NOT listed.

You were wrong with your support for the *build a kit* approach. Unless that kit is then used to **analyze** something, building a kit is NOT part of a proper **Science** project.

Very unusual for a private skool.

4th grade? That's about 9-10 year old. That's about the age where one wants to build things, anything. I don't recall even having a science fair in the 4th grade. I think my first was in the 6th grade.

Sigh. Apparently this teacher has never built anything. One does not build a kit to learn something. One builds it to have something that works. The learning is incidental. At that age, it's literally impossible to do anything that does NOT also include learning. Digging a hole in the yard is a learning experience. Tearing apart a toy to see how it works is a learning exeperience. Apparently, this teacher is into regimented learning, strictly by the books, and from the books. While books are handy for understanding things that cannot be touched, smelled, seen, or set on fire, the personal experience of getting burned by the soldering iron, putting the parts in backwards, and trying to troubleshoot the results, is far more educational.

Yep. Textbooks. I think they should be banned but that's another rant.

In the past, I would give talks and advise senior high skool students on their science fair projects. They never had any difficulty finding new ideas. The problem was keeping them for attempting something impossible or dangerous. My mantra was "learn by doing" which implies that the exercise was in the doing, not in the "learn by reading". I did have some conflicts over safety and liability issues, which is why I don't do this any more. However, the students and most teachers universally subscribed too the doctrine that the learning was in the doing, not in the reading. I've very suprised that this 4th grade teacher does not.

Did this teacher actually say those things, or are you interpreting what you heard? I find it difficult to believe because the #2 problem (after funding) in todays skools is getting the students off their obeise butts and doing things that require activity. They seem to all want to languish in their chairs and not even move.

Something is wrong in that private skool. Discouraging investigation and self-education at that age is a VERY bad idea.

Drivel: At one point, I mentioned a slide rule. A few brave students asked if I could show them how to use one. I was rather suprised, but I showed up with a few slide rules I had accumulated:

and demonstrated a few basic functions. Judging by the responses, I suspect some students, who detested math, suddenly found the topic interesting and educational. I also dragged in an abacus, with which I did not do so well. However, a Chinese student from another class, later volunteered to show us how it's done, and captured everyones attention.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 04:21:16 -0400, "Mike S" put finger to keyboard and composed:

For one thing, the young girl probably learned how to solder. She may also have learned how to recognise electronic components, even if she didn't understand how they worked. I think that's valuable practical knowledge. Most importantly, however, if she enjoyed doing what she did, then that may have inspired her to learn more about the subject.

I accept that rote learning is not very useful, but the girl's science project is a lot more than that. It's true what you say about China, though. Gone are the days when you could assemble a kit for less than the price of a ready-built commercial device. And even if you wanted to try, the datasheets for many ICs may only be available to the IC manufacturer's "partners". As for electronic theory, how many of us understand MPEG, digital TV, ADSL protocols, mobile phone protocols, etc? Are these concepts even taught? It seems to me that there is an ever shrinking clique of designers who are privy to proprietary standards, or standards that are sold at prohibitive cost.

One question I would ask the teacher is whether there is any point in doing the science experiments called out in the curriculum, eg adding an acid to an alkali to make a salt. Surely that's only repeating what countless other people have already done?

- Franc Zabkar

--
Please remove one \'i\' from my address when replying by email.

One of the ways one learns is by repeating other people's work. True creativity grows out of mastering the fundamentals.

Of course. That's makes good sense for an academic or scientifically inclined High Skool student. However, we're talking about a 4th grade class of 9-10 year olds. As I previously ranted, everything they do is a new and educational experience. The trick is to get them to do things. Education is incidental to experience. If they happen to learn a few things along the way, all the better.

When you haven't done many simple things, literally everything is considered creative to a 9-10 year old. Eventually, they do settle down and learn that it's not necessary to shove one's finger in the fire to know that it's hot. That can be learned from a book, video, or lecture.

You might be amused with the acceptable vocabulary for a 10 year old. As I recall from teacher prep the acceptable vocabulary was about

4,000 words (root words or lemmas) for the 4th grade. High Skool graduates can usually manage about 17,000 words. Much of the "fundamentals" consists of attaching names to concepts and experiences. If you've ever had to limit your vocabulary to that of a 10 year old, you'll find the experience rather ummm.... frustrating. Well, maybe not, as the typical television show targets about a 10 year old vocabulary.

Incidentally, I registered my personal philosophy as a domain name:

That should give you a clue as to how I view the learning experience.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558            jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
# http://802.11junk.com               jeffl@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com               AE6KS

That's simply not so. If the first kit, you'll learn to recognise at least some components. Possible also decide to learn how to use colour codes - or at least understand what they are for.

Maybe in later years - but for many the making is equally as pleasurable as the using. If not why bother?

That's the best way to learn. ;-)

--
*"I am " is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. * 

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Actually, it makes good sense for anyone. One might argue that doing things _is_ the education. I recently saw a quote from Picasso, in which he said he does things he doesn't know how to do in order to learn how to do them. Children need to be taught that one way you learn is by experimenting. You try different things to see what works. (I'm currently editing a manual at Microsoft Hardware. I can't visualize how parts of it should be organized, so I'm playing with different arrangements to see which work best.)

When LEGO introduced the original MindStorms, I bought a set and wrote an extended critique, which the US division promised to review and comment on, but (of course) never did. I'm still pissed. (I might dig it up and post it. I'd like to see the opinions of those in this group.)

One of the original MindStorm's problems was that it provided little, if any, provision for copying existing designs. The view seemed to be that kids' creativity would be stunted if they were shown how to do things. (I never heard anyone make that complaint about Erector sets, which came with books full of projects.) The nxt version has more designs to copy.

W doesn't seem to find it a problem.

Speaking of electronic "education"...

RadioShack is currently promoting online courses that teach "electronics". What they actually teach is the operation of products RS sells.

Indeed, but the problem was not the kit, it was either the teacher's assumption the girl had learned nothing while making it, or that the girl actually hadn't learned anything while making it, or a little of both.

Or just jumped the gun assuming something without really knowing and not having the time to spend on one student when the classroom curriculum needed to continue in order to give other students some ideas.

False. Modern electronics are, even when using largely integrated ICs, still bound by input, output, power, properties of the discrete components built into that IC. Think of it like this: If you want to solder together a bunch of transistors, a clockgen, resistors, etc, then pour a blob of epoxy on it, you have an IC that's just quite a bit larger than one mass produced.

... Unless you have to deal with the underlying aspects of the technology which is the same as in any other science or trade.

Oh? Have you not noticed any variable capacitors or other adjustable parts in one? Did you consider that for someone to have designed this modern radio, they had to know a bit more than your oversimplified notion? So it goes with any profession, you can say as a consumer "I don't need to know" but it is only because some professional does need to know and does know these basics. If you are thinking it was different back then, no it wasn't. People weren't building heathkits because they couldn't find a mass produced radio.

Theory is where it all starts. A child can put a round peg in a round hole but that's about the depth of the complexity possible until they develop analytical skills and formulate at least precursors of what we know as theories.

I think you are misunderstanding what it's all about. The average person never did buy a handful of transistors/etc and build a radio. There was a time when some products were expensive enough that to build your own meant you could save money, or it was just a hobby, but the same is true today for example LED flashlights or audio amplifiers.

Today design work is more about theory than ever. You're modularizing a design based on functions you mentally conceive, and you just have fewer steps to build each module. That is, if you are someone doing it at all, but it all starts somewhere. Did the child have a hope of building a modern radio instead? Science is about learning, right? Is the child expected to go down into a volcano or travel to Mars on a field trip? These too are science topics taught, it doesn't have to directly relate to a achieved result like owning a modern radio vs the concepts learned from a basic kit.

You are trying to take a shortcut between knowing nothing and having a nirvana where we have everything. A child is the next generation of worker who has to know fundamentals in their field, they cannot just walk into a room with boxes full of ICs and present you with a finished radio, and if you think only in terms of what they can buy, to have a good enough job to earn money for such things they have to have built a skill set in some other discipline which also starts out with the fundamentals.

I'm sure I've drifted away from your fundamental point, but on the other hand not everything one's heart desires can actually be bought at the local electronics store or Walmart, the more discriminating or picky a person is, the more apt they are to insist on making fewer compromises and having something that most closely matches their own subjective needs rather than a product trying to suit as many people as possible thus making it most marketable. For these picky people, if they have the skill they are more likely to build or modify something to suit their need.

As for building from a kit, quite a few people still build their own computer even though Dell et al. will gladly sell you one. Quite a few people modify their cars or houses, even if they leave the grunt work of the initial build to someone else while they focus on earning money through the job skills they are specialized in. In short it's just an evolution of our society that everyone isn't so much a jack of all trades anymore, that we have the most experience people do the most complex things to achieve a better result whenever it's reasonably possible, and those experienced people have to start out with the fundamentals and theories. Maybe the girl you wrote about will have no interest in electronics, but maybe she will. Only through exposure will this be known.

American education is going down the toilet. That's why the economy is going the same way.

Our economy is going down the toilet because parents haven't taught their greedy brats any ethics.

I agree school education has slipped terribly, but perhaps it's beginning was from a complete lack of parental support. How many parents even check to see their kids do their homework, etc........

The dimwit didn't even know?

Again, dimwitted teacher.

And any one who teaches that there was life before vacuum tube must be teaching history.

Agreed there. Give a modern kid a bag full of parts and he is just as likely to go to the dumpster than try to build something. Bill (sad state of affairs we are in)Baka