Homework for Dr. Wolff's Section

Assignments and readings are due on the day they are listed. For example, Petrosky, "Being Human" should be read for Thursday, Sept 4.

 

For December 4

Please complete the rough draft of your resume and bring 2 copies to class on Thursday. Do not merely bring in a resume that you wrote prior to this assignment. Rather, use the ideas on font, layout, and intengible skills to create a completely new resume informed by work you have done in Soph Clinic (and, perhaps, Freshman Clinic). 

 

Please read and print out the Wind Turbine Final Design Report assignment (.pdf) and the Final Design Report Style Guide (.pdf). Come to class with 3 - 5 questions.

 

For November 20

Please complete the Individual Contribution section of the Project Management section of the Progress Report assignment. Each team member should compose their own Individual Contrubution section, discussing in detail all the work they have contributed to the project thus far. Do not use list format; use sentences and paragraphs. Refer to other team members where necessary (using Mr. or Ms. followed by their last name). Upload all Individual Contributions to the team wiki. You can use first or third person. Whichever you choose, ensure that all are written in the same tense.

 

Please also read the Progress Report rubrics for Readers 1 and 2 (.pdf) and Reader 3 (.pdf). Bring copies to class and any questions you have about them.

 

For November 13

This assignment is going to ask us to begin working on our Gantt Charts, which are visual representations of complex projects over time. Please read What is a Cantt Chart by Lucinda Watrous and the Top Ten Benefits of a Gantt Chart by Joe Taylor, Jr. In class we generated a list of all activities that your groups had to do from the beginning to the end of the project. Using that list, create a Gantt Chart using instructions for Microsoft Excel or Microsoft Project (preferred, but harder to get access to that software). Upload a copy of your Gannt Chart and associated files to your team wiki. We will discuss them in detail in class on Thursday.

 

For October 14

Please complete your White Paper proposal, and post it to Blackboard by 11:00pm, Monday October 13. Your proposal should be equivalent to 2/3rds page (single space, Time New Roman font size 12) and consist of the following:

• brief introduction to the topic for a person not familiar with the subject area--that is, explain the subject area in some detail
• discussion of the specific problem, including why it is important problem and who are affected by the problem
• discussion of your solution, including why it is an appropriate solution to the problem and what other solutions might exist
• discussion of what areas your will need to research, and where you think you will find that information, in order to both support your claims for that particular solution and describe what is necessary to implement that solution (be specific about databases and topic areas)

 

Though not required (for now), you may want to read and think about the engineering problems discussed in these fascinating articles to help you come up some ideas related to some of the important issues of our time: bioengineering, nuclear energy, and water polution:

• Michael Pollan (1998) "Playing God in the Garden"(pollan-nytimes-garden.pdf)---discusses the ethical implications of gene modifications in crops

• Steve Ettlinger (2007) "Polysorbate 60" (ettinger-poly60.pdf)---discusses the processes of refining the food ingredient Polysorbate 60

• Alan Weisman (1994) "Journey through a Doomed Land: Exploring Chernobyl's Still-Deadly Ruins"(weisman-harpers-chernobyl.pdf)---discusses the lingering effects of nuclear disasters

• Alexander Stille (1998) "The Ganges' Next Life" (stille-ganges-1998.pdf)---discusses attempts to combat excessive polution along the sacred Ganges' River

 

Please complete the team charter and set up your team's wiki by the start of class on Tuesday (details to be added).

 

For October 9

Please read Petrosky (1998) "Paper Clips and Design" (petrosky-paperclips-1998.pdf) and "Aluminum Cans and Failure" (petrosky-cans-1998.pdf). These essays offer detailed description, with patent drawings, of the evolution of two kinds of everyday things that Norman describes in "The Psychopathology of Everyday Things": paper clips and aluminum beverage cans. Please post a response to the following prompt on the Blackboard discussion forum entitled "Clips and Cans":

 

How can we see Petrosky's essays as descriptions of problems and solutions? What are the specific problems? What are the solutions? Were they effective? After addressing these questions, turn your attention to the goal of the white paper assignment, which is also to address and problem with a potential solution(s). Come up with one engineering problem you have identified with things in your local environment and suggest some possible solutions for it. In class we discussed three things, and now we are starting to narrow down to something you might write your paper on. The goal here is to stay small, not to explore huge subjects like all of global warming or weapon systems or body armor. By looking for things in our local environment---our homes, dorm rooms, bags, classrooms, pathways that we take to class, class buildings, etc.---we can create papers that are specific in nature but also address an important engineering issue. Think creatively and expansively about these small things.

 

Please post your response by 11pm, Wed. Oct 8. This will give the entire class time to read the posts prior to class meeting. I encourage you to respond to your classmates' posts, so we can start discussion outside of class.

 

Please draft your response using Microsoft Word (or other word processor), check it for spelling, and then paste it the response field. Your response should be at least 1/2 page, single space, using Times New Roman font size 12, on a page with 1" margins.

 

For October 7

Please download, print, read, and bring to class a copy of the White Paper assignment (.pdf), as well as 3 questions you have about the assignment.

 

Please read, Norman, D. (1990) "The Psychopathology of Everyday Things" (norman-1990.pdf) and Jon Miller's article accompanying the Raffaella Mangiarotti profile we heard in class today. You can also see the web site for her company, deepdesign. Norman opens the article with the following: "'You would need an engineering degree from MIT to work this,' someone one told me, shaking his head in frustration over his brand new digital watch. Well, I have an engineering degree from MIT. (Kenneth Olsen has two of them, and he can't figure out a microwave over.) Give me a few hours and I can figure out the watch. But wht should it take hours?" (p. 1). Italian designer Raffaella Mangiarotti says, "I always tell my students, a project is not an answer," she told me. "It is a question. When you decide what is the question, you understand quite everything. Then the shape comes naturally."

 

Please bring to class a list of 3 "things" that have proved similarly frustrating to you, or that you think need some kind of improving, what makes them so problematic, and how you might go about improving them.

 

For September 30

Please complete and bring to class print and electronic versions of all graphs, tables, and bottle rocket figures. All graphs and tables MUST be formatted as discussed in class on Tuesday, Sept 23. We will discuss diagraming figures, captions, and titles in class on the 30th.

 

For September 25

Please read Finkelstein's 1-page discussion of Executive Summaries (finkelstein-exec-sum.pdf), and then complete a draft of the following sections iin memorandum format:

 

• Executive Summary

• Introduction

• Technical Description (incorporate changes based on in-class discussion)

• Definition of Design Problem

• Parametric Design Process (including at least 2 essential figures and 2 essential tables)

   

When completing those sections, be sure to include everything that is outlined in the Assignment 1: Design Report on Rocket Project handout ( rocket-design-report-f08.pdf).

 

When composing your document, please follow all the layout requirements that are described in the Guide for Writing Assignment 1 ( assignment1-writing-guide-f08.pdf). That is:

 

• use proper memo format and paragraph format

• use headers and subheaders

• use correct fonts and bold where necessary

• write complete sentences, not bulleted lists

• use 1" margins all around

• single space

• include figure and table titles

• include figure captions

• place figures and tables in the text, not at the end

   

Bring 2 printed copies to class. We will be going over these in detail. You can (and should) compose almost all of this text prior to getting your final results. If there are parts of the parametric design process that  you still need to do, simply leave room for that description, and add it after lab on Thursday.

 

For September 23

Please bring 3 printed copies of the Technical Description in memorandum format.

 

For September 18

Download, print, read, and bring to class the Assignment 1 Writing Guide ( assignment1-writing-guide-f08.pdf). Please read (former SophClinic professor) Hutto (2007), "Graphics and Invention in Engineering Writing" (hutto-tc-graphics-2007.pdf) and selections from Tufte (tufte-graphical-2001.pdf and tufte-chartjunk-2006038.pdf--these are both short and full of graphics) and post to your team wiki 3 data graphics that resulted from tests completed during the lab. These can be graphs, sketches, tables, etc. We will discuss the graphics and the texts in class. Please bring your latest bottle rocket to class.

 

In the last page of the second Tufte reading, Tufte reproduces a word graph. On his web site, some users have redesigned his redesign. You can see those at:

• http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/images/00026e-2534.gif
• http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/images/00026e-2535.gif
• http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/images/00027S-2537.gif  
• http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/images/00027S-2538.gif
• to see them in the context of a posts, see http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0000Jr&topic_id=1 

 

For September 16

Now that we have read and talked about the role of the many forms of writing in the engineering design process, we are going to focus on how forms of communication (writing, presentations, conversations, and so forth) impact decision making. Specifically, we are going to look at the January 28, 1986, space shuttle Challenger disaster. Please download, print, and read the following in this order: Griffin, "Groupthink of Irving Janice" (griffin-groupthink-challenger.pdf), Winsor, "The Construction of Knowledge in Organizations: Asking the Right Questions about the Challenger" (winsor-jbtc-challenger.pdf), and Tufte, "The Decision to Launch the Space Shuttle Challenger" (tufte-challenger-1997.pdf).

 

While reading these texts I would like you to think about the communication and collaboration practices of your group to date. That is, how you have been working on the project---in lab and on the wiki---since the project began. Then, as a group, I would like you to compose an analysis of your group work to date in terms of Griffin's, Winsor's, and Tufte's discussions. Think about how you have been working together, if there has been one person dominating the discussion(s), design(s), and ideas, or if everyone has been contributing equally. These kinds of group reflections are extremely difficult and uncomfortable, but they are essential for your group work well together over the next several weeks. Make sure your statement is honest, fair, and non-accusational. Think about how you are going to move forward to ensure that the issues described in the reads do not happen to your group.

 

Your response should be no less than 2/3rds of a page, single spaced, using Times New Roman font size 12, on a page with 1" margins. Use paragraphs. When complete, create a new page on your wiki called GroupAnalysis, and then paste in your response under the heading, Group Analysis 1. Please complete this by Monday, Sept 15 at 9:00pm.

 

For September 11

Please read and annotate the Bottle Rocket assignment. As a team come up with 5 questions you have about the assignment. Complete the Team Mission Statement. During lab, think about and document everything that your team is doing that you think could be counted as writing. Think about how that writing is contributing to your design process. Start uploading work to the wiki. In class we will discuss the assignment, the writing you have been doing in lab, Petrosky, Windsor, and the responses you submitted for Tuesday.

 

For September 9

Please download, print, and read Petrosky's "Design as Revision" (petroski-revision-1992.pdf) and Winsor's "What Counts as Writing? An Argument from Engineers' Practice" (winsor-jac-engineering-writing-2.pdf). Annotate texts as described by Axelrod & Cooper, and post a response to the following prompt on the Blackboard discussion forum entitled "Engineering and Writing":

 

In "What counts as writing? An argument from engineer’s practice," Dorothy Winsor observes: As Lisa Ede and Andrea Lunsford point out, "We name in order to know, but that naming inevitably limits our knowing. . . . Definitions of writing, of course, reflect a set of ideological assumptions that we ignore only at our peril" (15). The ideological assumptions we ignore here have to do with how knowledge is created and how much control individuals have over their own knowing. Ideology leads both us and engineers to deny that writing has occurred in much engineering practice.

 

If this is the case--that our own beliefs about engineering inhibit our ability to see that writing is a significant portion of the work of engineering--why is it so? And how is Petrosky attempting to break down that distinction between engineering and writing? Is there a way to think about writing as informing the processes of engineering and engineering informing the process of writing? Address all three questions in your response, and be sure to refer directly to the texts.

 

Please post your response by 5:00pm on Monday, September 8. This will give the entire class time to read the posts prior to class meeting. I encourage you to respond to your classmates' posts, so we can start discussion outside of class.

 

Please draft your response using Microsoft Word (or other word processor), check it for spelling, and then paste it the response field. Your response should be at least 1/2 page, single space, using Times New Roman font size 12, on a page with 1" margins.

 

For September 4

Please download, print, and read Axelrod & Cooper "Strategies for Reading Critically" (axelrod-cooper-strategies.pdf), McIsaac & Aschauer  "Pressure in the Proposal Writing Environment" ( mcisaac-atherton-1990.pdf -- only 1 page), and Petrosky, "Being Human" (petroski-human-1992.pdf). Use the annotation techniques described by Axelrod & Cooper to annotate Petrosky. We will discuss both articles in class. Annotations will also be checked. (Related NY Times articles on skywalk collapse:  kansas-city-walkways-7-19-81-pg1.pdf,  kansas-city-walkways-7-19-81-pg24.pdf,  kansas-city-walkways-7-28-81-D19.pdf. Related Tacoma Narrows Bridge footage (on YouTube): color, no audio or black and white newsreel with audio.)