The traditional way of teaching at a college or university has always struck me as strange and artificial. The teacher summarizes sets of rules, illustrates the related concepts on the whiteboard, and students are expected to derive some form of understanding about the topic from this.
Contrast this to how a three year old learns how to play videos on an iPhone. No one tells her how the capacitive sensing array under the glass works or how the underlying operating system multitasks between gesture recognition and measurement of the gravity vector using onboard accelerometers. She simply moves and swipes, sometimes succeeding, sometimes failing at making the device work the way she wants. These hands-on, trial-and-error tests induce a change in how the child uses the phone. After a few months of learning like this, children are often more adept at using the phone than their parents are!
The child's inductive approach to learning is a stark contrast to the artificial deductive approach we experience so often in school. The inductive approach is more natural and typically leads to a deeper, more useful understanding.
I've recently improved my third-year electrical engineering course on sensing and measurement by augmenting the traditional deductive teaching methods with explicit inductive learning exercises. One goal of this course is to familiarize students with tools for analysis, simulation, visualization, and design. I wanted the students to be able to explore the models in a hands-on, self-directed way. It was critical that whatever tool I chose also explicitly confirmed the mathematical models the students saw in class and in their textbook.
I selected the system-level modeling tool MapleSim, from Maplesoft, to enable this inductive approach. It allows students to model a system, observe realistic behaviors, and generate equations that help explain those underlying behaviors.
To illustrate, let’s take a very fundamental concept all EE students deal with -- op amps. It’s important for students to tie in how an op amp modulates a signal or how it amplifies/attenuates a signal, and any simulation package used must be able to facilitate a clear understanding of this concept. In the traditional deductive teaching approach, the instructor would refer to a standard textbook like The Art of Electronics, and give students the golden rules of op amps and tell them how current goes into certain ports and not others, and why voltages should be of a certain value. The students are then asked to solve the circuits by hand. There’s a lot of potential for error here. It’s asking a lot of the students, especially if they haven’t had any experience with electronics.
Alternatively, in the inductive (MapleSim) approach, students start by drawing the schematic, and then simulate it. Then they extract the underlying equations in the software, explore them using different scenarios, and analyze the equations to derive conclusions. The best part of this for students is that they can match it with what they are seeing in their textbooks, as the simulation process they go through is the same as in the textbook.
Traditional tools do have their place, but they don’t let the students see under the hood, which is an impediment to learning. What makes this approach different from others is that students can ask the software for underlying equations and interact with them in different scenarios. With MapleSim, students can easily connect the analytic models in textbooks to the numeric solutions that result from the simulation. This openness is critical to student learning.
In addition, the software’s system-level approach to multi-domain systems lets students extend an EE problem to what they learn in their ME or instrumentation class. This expands the scope for students and encourages them to think beyond the limited span of a particular problem.
— James Andrew Smith is an assistant professor in electrical and computer engineering at Ryerson University, and he’s currently the Biomedical Program Stream Coordinator at Ryerson University. James received BSc and MSc degrees in electrical engineering at the University of Alberta. He completed a PhD in mechanical engineering at McGill University, with a focus on developing the world's first galloping robots.
Simulation tools in the engineering classroom are a good thing, given the ubiquity of these tools in modern engineering practice. When I was in school a decade ago, there was minimal coverage of simulation techniques. In school, finite-element analysis was still considered a specialized topic for graduate students, while in industry, it was already well-established as a regular part of the design process.
While it's good to see students being introduced to simulation tools early on (especially in core courses such as circuit analysis, rather than specialized courses focused on computational methods), it's also important for students to understand the limits of a given simulation. They need to learn not to believe things just because they see them on a screen.
I hope that the use of MapleSim in this class is not intended to replace a more traditional electronics lab. It should not be an alternative to building the circuits on a breadboard. That's an inductive learning approach that has been around for a long time.
Hi Dave,
I completely agree that simulation shouldn't replace labs. The students in my ELE 604 class will tell you that the labs are very hands-on and practical (lots of soldering, lots of coding). Simulations like the ones we do in MapleSim are integrated into the practical lab components to help them understand the underlying theory and to explore the designs in ways that are impractical in the lab equipment (wide parameter sweeps of components, for instance). In the end, the validation is always done on practical hardware.
all the best,
James
Yes, I almost hate to admit, simulation has a place. After all, you have an endless supply of components and test equipment that never get damaged. It's also valuable for studying the difference between ideal and actual components, as well as studying component attributes like ESR.
I have developed countless circuits and mechanical designs in a virtual space. I even tested operation, which turned out to be exactly like the real-world counterparts operated. I started doing this to have an ideal working environment, instead of battling faulty soldering and/or printing. Too many other factors come into play in the physical form. Once verified in virtual space, a build tends to go smoother, in my opinion.
Excellent idea, starting with the simulation to augment the classroom lectures. As Dave said, it should not be replacing the lab portion, but it does give some additional benefits in that it allows the students to investigate the limits of the devices without letting the smoke out.
Thanks for covering this from the teacher's POV. DN editors have written before about MapleSim, such as this article from last September: http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?section_id=1394&doc_id=250202
I agree, Jack. I think it's a great approach. The word "augment" seems to be the key here. It's an exercise intended to augment the learning process, not replace it.
There's little doubt that the learning methods we use in schools aren't "natural" for everyone. Years ago, an engineering school in my hometown tried an experimental method wherein students would learn from the top down, rather than the bottom up. For example, if a student wanted to learn how to design a bridge, he or she wouldn't start with calculus, move to Newtonian physics and so on and so on. Instead, they would start with bridge design, then learn the math and science when necessary within the context of a structural engineering program. As I understand, the method worked great for one student, who went on to get a PhD. But it caused enormous headaches for the university, which didn't know how to keep control of the learning process and assign grades. So while it's true that universities don't always employ the most natural teaching methods, sometimes those methods are unfortunately necessary.
@Charles Murray: I agree that there's a need for both theory and practice. In the example of the three-year-old learning to use the iPhone, it's very unlikely that the child would learn why capacitive sensors or accelerometers work just by playing around with the phone... and why is something that three-year-olds (and college students, and adults) want and need to know.
Hands-on learning is essential, but it only tells us how things work, not why they work. The underlying principles are usually non-obvious, which is why it has taken several millenia for people to figure them out. (If someone showed a GPS satellite to Issac Newton, could he have figured out special relativity? Probably not). We need someone to explain these things to us, which is why books and lectures (and copious note-taking!) are so important.
I completely agree, as personally I have learned so much more by hands-on experience than I ever have from hearing someone lecture at me, or even reading books. It is the most natural way to learn something, especially in engineering where trial and error are a part of the process. Funny that engineers are rethinking the design of things so much but it seems like sometimes no one has thought to redesign the teaching and learning process!
Good point, Liz. The first year of engineering school drives some students away -- this is a recognized problem. Too much theory, not enough hands-on learning. As a result, washout rates in most of the big public engineering schools are between a half and two-thirds, according to statistics from the University of Texas a few years back. Engineering curriculums are working hard to change that, but change is slow.
On April 21, NASA launched a novel project, putting into orbit three satellites that employ an off-the-shelf commercial smartphone as the control system.
The legacy endpoint devices that control our critical infrastructure (utility systems, water treatment plants, military networks, industrial control systems, etc.) are some of the most vulnerable devices on the Internet.
In a switched-capacitor filter, capacitors and switches take the place of resistors and accurately reproduce the characteristics of continuous-time Bessel, Butterworth, and elliptical filters.
From Dell / Intel® New Paradigms in Design Work Scott Hamilton, vertical market strategist for Dell Precision workstations, 5/2/2013 5
Early in my career, I worked as a draftsman and remember the days of drawing on vellum with numbered pencils and Mylar with plastic lead. This was a fun experience in the sense that I ...
I've been using workstations for more than 10 years and love finding ways to get more performance from my system. With demanding professional applications that require more power each ...
A lasting memory from my first job as an engineer in an auto assembly plant is standing on hard concrete at six in the morning, vending-machine coffee clutched in hand, listening to ...
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This radio show will show what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.
To save this item to your list of favorite Design News content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This
2 
