#pidacs

[theengineerthatcould]

Reigniting the passion for education

Some members of my group arranged to meet with Ms. Beth Neville Evans today with the intention of finding more information about the computer literacy, and she was gracious enough to oblige. However, she seemed so excited when we pitched our original Sparking Curiosity idea to her. That was surprising to me, albeit pleasantly. For weeks now, I have been trying to thinking of a new idea that would couple education with a project that effected some tangible change to the San Mateo community. I had difficulty thinking of topics that we as students would be qualified to lead and teach about, and was really beating myself up about it. However, talking to Beth Neville and listening to her comments about our original proposal reminded me that education is an entirely worthwhile goal in itself. Our original vision was to instill scientific curiosity in the students and open up their mind. Even though it’s impact is not easily quantifiable or immediately tangible like technical solutions to an energy problem, it is still a tremendously important mission that would be beneficial to San Mateo.

Furthermore, another significant merit in this proposal is that it aims to address a deep, developmental issue—education—that would be a sustainable way to tackle challenges in San Mateo’s socioeconomic issues. Another benefit in this proposal is that is indeed small scale. Having seen the degree to which planned projects, such as the one about computer literacy, have changed after getting to the ground due to limitations in feasibility was testimony to the fact that we should not try to bite off more than we can chew. We may have big dreams and big ambitions, but we are still high school students. A major criteria in our proposal should be appropriate scale and fitting to our abilities.

I sincerely appreciated Beth Nevile’s input. Our proposal has officially gone in a circle in terms of concept, I suppose, although it’s definitely picked up valuable insights along the way.

For one, I believe the main flaw in our original proposal wasn’t the idea itself, but the skewed emphasis on scientific knowledge over curiosity and skill. It also had a lot to do with our report writing and presentation of our ideas and information.

However, now we’re at a much better place and I feel more confident about my original vision. That is comforting and encouraging to me because of passion I have for improving access and quality of education in the world.

There’s still a ton of work left to be done on PIDACS, but and I will keep working on it.

On a side note: Beth Neville is such an interesting and passionate person. She has all sorts of experiences and stories to tell, and her passion for San Mateo Ixtatan was inspiring to me. I sincerely appreciated this conversation with her. Going to San Mateo and executing this program proposal is something that I am genuinely interested in and will look into for next summer.

[theengineerthatcould]

Wanted: A Better PIDACS Idea

With a second Reverse Engineering project going on, we’re still trying not to lose sight of the PIDACS revisions that my previous group is undertaking. We are having trouble finding a balance between scientific education and technical training. We understood that point that scientific theory might not have an immediate, practical education, but I didn’t feel satisfied with technical training because that means teaching someone to complete a task over and over again. The whole point behind our original proposal was to spark curiosity, teach them problem-solving skills, and give them confidence in their ability to solve problems in their own community.

I got to a point where my thoughts were going too much in circles and I decided to seek some outside advice. I met with Professor Elzey and told him about my conflict. He said that he agreed with the idea of teaching students principles, but emphasized the need to do so through hands-on activities that can be linked to something that students can do to benefit their community. An example he gave was showing students how to fix engines in a tractor, or a lesson in the science behind agricultural techniques that the community may have developed based on heuristics. I thought these were meaningful examples of combining education with a practical project, and afterwards tried to continue to develop these ideas.

I sincerely appreciated the conversation because I was at a point where I needed an outside opinion to get me out of the rut I was in. I had been overthinking and that stifled my creativity and innovation, but getting a fresh perspective was able to stimulate my thoughts again.

An issue we found with some of these ideas, however, was our own lack of qualification to teach it. None of our team members have experience in auto mechanics, and we’ll probably be as lost as they are. Same goes with agriculture. Honestly, the Mateanos would have a lot more experience about it and would be much better at it.

So, we tried to think of something that we do have a certain level of expertise in.

Computers! We have lived with it nearly our entire lives and have extended experience working with the basic software as well as the internet.

We tried to develop the idea of computer literacy as a program for the San Mateo. We found out about a 2010 Jefferson Public Citizen team who had planned a computer literacy initiative for the community in India. We contacted them to find more information. One of the members, MG, told us that they had started out planning to do a computer literacy project focused on teaching computer skills to students & teachers in the area, which is similar to the idea that we are thinking of. Then, after talking more with the community partner, they realized they actually only needed teachers to instruct really complex programming skills- which the team members didn't know—in order to obtain better jobs. Therefore, the team changed their project to a social research and assessment on the gap between education and employment in the region. Another member of the team, JH, also told us that they found their project to be not feasible after speaking with their community partner. The aspect about teaching basic computer literacy skills was found to be superfluous, because there already existed state-run schools and centers that taught computer literacy at a higher level than what the team members were qualified to teach for.

This was helpful in giving us ideas about other factors to be considered in carrying out a computer literacy program, such as existing programs and the current skill level of the students. There aren’t state-run computer literacy centers in San Mateo, but the high school students expectedly already have basic computing skills.

Our team decided to meet with Ms. Beth Neville again to get more information about computer literacy. See next post for details.

[theengineerthatcould]

Not done with PIDACS yet...

The PIDACS project has been the most challenging project we had done. It was a valuable experience just grappling with the complexities and realities of engineering. We didn’t have enough information and had limited means of finding out more. The problem was so open-ended and it was difficult to pin down a single approach. We had to learn to deal with incomplete information and the uncertainty inherent in life. It was also a valuable experience in navigating group dynamics and exploring how to most efficiently work with other people.

My team received an 8.0 on the PIDACS project and I admit I was very disappointed initially. Our group put in a lot of effort in developing our idea and hashing out the ideas behind and details of our proposal. It was very different from the more technical proposals from other teams, many of which involved power generation.

However I do appreciate the opportunity for revision look forward to them. As I sit back and go through the logic in our first project, that were many ways that our original effort was lacking, both in the report writing and concept generation. For one, we were too ambitious with our goals. Mateano students have so little background in science that understanding scientific concepts would be difficult. Furthermore, this knowledge cannot necessarily be utilized by the students because they are perhaps too theoretical. Our original intent was that scientific education in the long term will allow the students to change their own town, but this would be a very long process.

So, after re-reading the report with fresher eyes and analyzing that comments and suggestions that Professor Elzey made, I came up with the following list of ways in which our project can be improved:

Increase coherence in the report

The original report was too much of a compilation of answers to the questions and tasks listed in the book, rather than a coherent entity on its own.

Information that the book asked for can be included in a different order and different ways, and taking headings directly out of the book will not always follow logically

An introduction and transitions to hold the parts together. Beginning with something like “Part I” is too blunt. This does not provide background information to someone who has not participated in the investigative process as part of our engineering class.

Be more thorough in including research information in the report

We neglected to include the information about other aspects of San Mateo’s infrastructural challenges in the report, under “investigating current affairs.” Although we had done general research about the economy, potable water, and public health, etc., but in the report we focused too much on only the information we later decided to use, namely electricity and education.

Including information about other aspects which we had research demonstrate the comprehensiveness of our research, and supplements our rationale for choosing the topics we did in the end.

A chart would be helpful in displaying our research in the various categories of challenges that San Mateo faces.

Make the transitions from the initial approach to post-Beth-Neville approach more clear

Our project took a significant change in direction after meeting with Beth Neville. While there was a distinct change in perspective and our approach, the distinction was not made clear in the report. The information we had received was also blurred with what we already knew

A flow chart would be beneficial in demonstrating how our thought process changed after meeting Beth Neville

Incorporate more charts and visuals

Problem statement-restatement, and relationship between inputs and outputs could would logically fit into charts

Be less constrained during brainstorming

Write down ideas even if they may seem unrealistic at first

Be more specific in the wording of the proposal

The meaning of “basic” scientific principles will mean different things to different people: “simple”, “easy to understand” vs. “fundamental”

Direct focus further towards hands-on projects

Find more projects that is directly applicable to the community

Ex. Examine fuse boxes in houses to teach them about circuits

Presents operating scientific principles, while also giving them basic comprehension of what to do if electricity goes out

Explanation of scientific theories such as electrons should be viewed more as a supplement hands-on projects

Increase focus on teaching students how to learn

Be thorough in analyzing the feasibility of the project

Add cost analysis to the report

This is a rather hefty list but hopefully my group can get to it soon! This re-evaluation is very necessary, I believe there is merit in our idea of “Sparking Curiosity” and getting Mateano students to develop a basic understanding of science. However, our idea of “basic” is different from what might be basic to those students, and it’s also different from what Professor Elzey understands as “basic.” He gave the advice of using the phrase “operating principles” to convey the idea that we want to teach just enough so that students can understand. This illustrates our relative ineffectiveness in communicating our ideas in the original report.

I spoke with some of my classmates asking for feedback and advice on our project, and some of them expressed the sentiment that education seemed like a very long-term method to solve the energy problem. I agree with that point, and I believe we need to make clearer and better support our claim that energy is not the most pressing problem in San Mateo.

I am very passionate about access to education and it’s personally important to me that we readjust our educational proposal to a more feasible and impactful one. 

[theengineerthatcould]

Considerations of the Social Context

Engineers can tend to take a reductionist approach and zero in on just the technical aspects of a problem. However, taking a problem out of context is analogous to taking words out of context—it can be misdirected, misleading, or incorrect. Thus, a purely technical and out of context problem statement tends to lead to a misdirected search for solutions. The reductionist approach also causes the design team lose sight of the original motivation and limits their ability to deal with the complexity of the real problem. Then, the final solution is likely to be ineffective in addressing the original problem. 

Mr. Cogill initially presented us with the problem of constructing a hydroelectric power plant. That is a prime example of taking a reductionist approach. A hydroelectric power plant are a great idea but would it be feasible in the environment of San Mateo? Why do Mateanos need it? What is their current electricity situation and more importantly, how do they perceive it?  Ask questions it and teasing our answers is critical in helping us tease out the social context and develop a way of tackling the problem in a more appropriate way.

Turns out, asking those questions led our teams away from the hydroelectric power plant. Knowing the social context completely changed our approach because the narrowing the problem to such a technical one took away the significance of Mr. Cogill’s original motivation, which is to improve the quality of life in San Mateo. However, in knowing the context, the teams in our class had a better understanding of the root causes of in the myriad of challenges that San Mateo faces and developed creative methods of dealing with them. Some teams came up with other methods of providing energy and others tackled education as a way to contribute to the long term socioeconomic development of San Mateo.

All in all, I believe these solutions were more comprehensive and effective than developing a hydroelectric power plant, at least in the context of San Mateos’s society. Knowing the social context allowed us to tackle deeper problems.

[theengineerthatcould]

A View from a Different Angle: Ms. Beth Neville Evans

Today several of us from the class met with Ms. Beth Neville Evans to find out more information about the San Mateo for our projects. Ms. Evans is the president of the Ixtatan Foundation, a philanthropic whose mission is to promote the socio-economic development of San Mateo. Their website has been a major source of information about San Mateo for us lately.

Speaking with Ms. Evans put a 180 degree turn on our approach thus far. Because of the way the problem was initially presented to us—constructing a hydroelectric power plant using the two streams that run through San Mateo Ixtatan—we have been placing complete emphasis on supplementing the electricity supply in San Mate, which severely limited our solution paths. Even though our Why-Why charts had pointed to the deficiencies of education and economy as the root problems in the infrastructure of San Mateo, the problem statement as presented us had limited us to increasing the amount of electricity in the town. This illustrated the importance of constructing an appropriate problem statement. It needs to be specific enough but not too constrained as to limit creativity. While “improve the quality of life in San Mateo” may be too broad, “build a hydroelectric power plant” is too specific. We may be able to start with statements like these, but that’s where the why-why charts, dunker diagrams, and problem statement-restatement comes in to help tweak them. Identifying and articulating an appropriate statement is so central to a project.

Beth Neville gave us a much more comprehensive perspective. One of the main and most important pointes she made was that, contrary to what Mr. Cogill said, lights do not go out at 6 pm, instead they simply dim. She emphasized that people are used to living with it, and that the amount of electricity is not an issue in the community. I think Mr. Cogill's perspective was more of a view of San Mateo, while Beth Neville tried to give us a view from San Mateo. While Mr. Cogill thought that dim lights and insufficient heating was a significant problem, Beth Neville believes that people are completely used to it and don't view it as an issue.

Beth Neville also highlighted that her philosophy is to do things in small steps. She did not encourage, and was rather averse to the idea of a group of foreign students coming in and installing a large-scale power plant for the town. Not only would this be difficult to accomplish, but it would not have much long-lasting impact. She identified the deficiencies in the education system to be a main issue and we came out of the meeting believing that improving the education system would be a long-term, but sustainable solution to the developmental issues in San Mateo. Our project will probably be a small project to supplement the lack of math and science in their education system.

All and all, I thoroughly enjoyed talking with her and learning about the problems in San Mateo and thinking about how these problems can be addressed. I think this showed me that global development is something I’m passionate about. 

[theengineerthatcould]

San Mateo Ixtatan: Un introducción

Today we met with Mr. Tom Cogill, a philanthropist / photographer who lives in small town in Guatemala called San Mateo Ixtatan, to gather information about a potential engineering service project. We were initially presented with the goal of constructing a hydroelectric plant using the two streams that run on the edges of town, but our professor gave us the freedom to design other projects if we decide that there are other, more pressing issues, or if more electricity isn’t what community really needs for betterment. If we came up with a feasible solution and if we had the interest, we have the opportunity to actually travel to San Mateo Ixtatan and bring the project to life. Cool stuff, right?

I was very interested in the accessibility and quality of education, and bombarded the man with questions about the current education system. The gentleman was very calm. He answered questions slowly and with plenty of consideration. As a photographer, he wasn’t an expert on the technical stuff so I took the opportunity to ask him about the culture. I loved being challenged to think on my feet and come up with new questions about potential issues we might run into in our project design. I didn’t really have an idea what our speaker was like, and it was cool to experience the active change in what I planned to ask as I adapted to his personality and knowledge.

I was also curious about the social effects of more electricity or increased computer access and usage in the community. Technology does a world of good but in our world, their negative impacts are not insignificant. Prolonged lighted hours would certainly alter the nature of work and play and likely change the dynamic within the family. I also asked Mr. Cogill whether there would be a lot of resistance to modernization in the community. I had read that San Mateo Ixtatan is a culturally rich community and the people strongly value their Mayan heritage. I was concerned that increasing the presence of technology might negatively impact their cultural values. It was interesting to note that, at least from Mr. Cogill’s perspective, the majority of the people would be very willing to embrace modernity.

Overall, that was such a unique experience. Not once-in-a-life time because I know I will make time for more global development projects, but it was first-in-a-life time and the feeling is right on par. We had a group of five first-year engineering students, and we could help make a small Guatemalan town a better place. Everything is from scratch. Task number one is identifying a problem, and do something that will combat the problem in a self-sustaining manner in the community. As of now, I have no idea where this will go or how it will pan out. But I am so excited. It’s going to stress me out insanely over the next few weeks and it might be one of the hardest things I have ever done, but bring it. Bring on the experiential learning. 

Image 1: A View of San Mateo Ixtatan, found here

Image 2: A Mateano Woman, found here