Metalwork teaching

daithi_lacha

your best bet is to check out the module outline, but it would be 40% of the written exam, which would be 20% of your whole module I'd imagine.... but double check it in the outline!

RHunce

Hows the drawing in the course lads?

hope to do woodwork teaching next year and hope to get an a1 in my DCG this June..

Is the course very practically orientated?

canned_ulkc

RHunce - I'm in 3rd year WW and I love it. Things have changed for the last 2 years and I believe there will be 5 modules in the future rather than 6. Also, we got no solidworks until this year but they start it right away now (which makes sense given all did DCG rather than the old syllabus)

Personally, I think there are a few frustrations within the course and the workload is significant. In terms of how things are done; it's not a case of woodwork modules teaching you how to do woodwork and the education module taking on the teaching bit - it's about appropriate project work, covering the skills and an approach to teaching the relevant skills.

Some modules felt like filler up to now but maybe the reduction in module numbers will cure that.....

10rooney10

well boys... whats the story with the first year materials labs -- if you miss one how much % do you lose and also how many can you miss altogether?

daithi_lacha

10rooney10 wrote: »

also how many can you miss altogether?

not the best attitude to take.... you're marked on the online tests - your answers for these will be based on the lab results. ive heard of people who never took an online test and still managed to pass the module but dont risk it! just show up!

RHunce

10rooney10 wrote: »

well boys... whats the story with the first year materials labs -- if you miss one how much % do you lose and also how many can you miss altogether?

from my reading of this thread you are seriously living acedemic life on the edge :eek:

Figerty

Can I give one piece of advice to all you lads doing Engieering Teaching..
During the summer or when Finished go out and get a job in an engineering works for a while. Go an visit an proper engineering workshop.
The Construction and Engineering courses in UL are not going to give you a proper grasp on workpracitices and methods used in the real world.

Take welding for example.. how much welding are you going to do in college. Can you MMA, MIG, TIG or GAS weld to a high standard when you are finishes... No,, but you can talk about it!

Can you align a milling machine head, adjust the backlash, or even use a rotary table when finished? Probably not if you have only taken the course modules.

Could you machine an left hand double or tripple start thread? Could you use a set of slip gauges properly when machining a slot?
Could you set up the offsets and tool librarys on a CNC machine to industrial standards?

Could you machine a component on a lathe or Mill to +-0.02mm and below (H7 standard) when you are finished?

Could you harden and temper a piece of steel to the required standard?
I am not knocking the course, just saying it can't cover it all, but you are expected to be an expert in the Engineering field.

canned_ulkc

I disagree.

While the teaching of any subject should not be limited by syllabus, and while it's been a long time since I was at Letterkenny Vocational School I'm pretty sure I don't remember any milling machines there....

Though I don't disagree completely; getting an Engineering or Construction job after these courses can only help to improve understanding and widden your vision but it's certainly not going to enhance your pedagogy significantly to spend a few years doing something that is essentially surplus to requirements.

If I were offering any similar advice it'd be to get a deeper understanding of special needs. That's what I intend doing.... especially seeing as the course is very much deficient in that area.

Figerty

The first thing anyone teaching any subject should be is fully competent in their subject area. This includes teaching pedagogies and your intention to deepen your knowledge of special needs is good.

However, how can you stand in front of a class and not be fully equiped with the technical and practical skills to teach this course to industrial standard (at level 5 on the Hetac scale). Unfortunatley this is not the case with the graduates of these courses.

Your point re Milling machines is fair. I am quite sure your reccollection is accurate about the lack of milling machines which in itself is an indiction that the school curriculum isn't up to scratch. Take a trip to any Engieering trade show and have a look at the range of metal cutting machines. You will find that Milling machines *(be they CNC or lathe with live tooling) are the mainstay of metal cutting still.

You could argue as why Leving cert constrution students are doing a woodwork practical day exam in a construction studies subject.

So I will restate my point, if you want to be regarded as an expert in your field (including teaching pedagogies),and be confident in your abilities by your students, then I honestly suggest that you go and do some addtional practical courses after grauation to bring your skills to requried levels.

canned_ulkc

Figerty wrote: »

You could argue as why Leving cert constrution students are doing a woodwork practical day exam in a construction studies subject.

Absolutely you could. You could also argue that the practical day exam should not be worth 25% of the marks.

But then the draft Architectural Technology syllabus is replacing the Construction Studies syllabus which will also remove the much opted for furniture element from the project work. Both good moves in my opinion.

The reason it hasn't been implemented it due to money - that's not likely to change for a while either so for now we're stuck with a syllabus that is outdated, and a draft syllabus not implemented - all while the exam evolves to something that is based considerably more on the still-not-in syllabus than the one which is offically there.

But that moves away from the point - I guess it depends on 2 things:
are you supposed to be an expert as an educator or in the field and
if it's the later then what's the point in third level engineering courses?

Personally, what I expect of myself is to know more than what the syllabus requires; but I don't think I need to actively pour every type of foundation possible to know how to progress with teaching the topic.

slickmcvic

Figerty wrote: »

Can I give one piece of advice to all you lads doing Engieering Teaching..
During the summer or when Finished go out and get a job in an engineering works for a while. Go an visit an proper engineering workshop.
The Construction and Engineering courses in UL are not going to give you a proper grasp on workpracitices and methods used in the real world.

Take welding for example.. how much welding are you going to do in college. Can you MMA, MIG, TIG or GAS weld to a high standard when you are finishes... No,, but you can talk about it!

Can you align a milling machine head, adjust the backlash, or even use a rotary table when finished? Probably not if you have only taken the course modules.

Could you machine an left hand double or tripple start thread? Could you use a set of slip gauges properly when machining a slot?
Could you set up the offsets and tool librarys on a CNC machine to industrial standards?

Could you machine a component on a lathe or Mill to +-0.02mm and below (H7 standard) when you are finished?

Could you harden and temper a piece of steel to the required standard?
I am not knocking the course, just saying it can't cover it all, but you are expected to be an expert in the Engineering field.

...your pretty spot on in what yir sayin,... graduated this course about 5 yrs ago and left reeling at the fact that only 1 practical welding session was covered in the whole 4 years(about 90 minutes)...ended up doing 3 FÁS welding courses and a car maintainence course to brush up for teaching LCA.
...I wouldn't be overly concerned with being able to machine pieces down to thousanths of a millimeter but the course didn't do much for going out into the real world.
...If less time was spent on the physics involved in the operation of the jet engine and a lot more on whats actually involved in teaching practical elements of the courses it would go a long way.
......found I learnt waay more in the FÁS evening courses than in the 4 yrs in UL.....(goood times though!)

Figerty

I agree regarding the day exam, however, in this country where it appears that corruption in endemic, the day exam is still valid as it is still a measure of the ability to cope and perform within a set of constraints; the content of the practical is questionable. I can give you examples of the benefit of this to the student in the real world if you like.

You aren't expected to be either an expert in your field or an expert as an educator... you are required to be both.

My point is this, coming out of this course, could you as perform all the tasks to the highest standard as a teacher/educator in the leaving certificate.

The answer is no.

canned_ulkc wrote: »

Absolutely you could. You could also argue that the practical day exam should not be worth 25% of the marks.

But then the draft Architectural Technology syllabus is replacing the Construction Studies syllabus which will also remove the much opted for furniture element from the project work. Both good moves in my opinion.

The reason it hasn't been implemented it due to money - that's not likely to change for a while either so for now we're stuck with a syllabus that is outdated, and a draft syllabus not implemented - all while the exam evolves to something that is based considerably more on the still-not-in syllabus than the one which is offically there.

But that moves away from the point - I guess it depends on 2 things:
are you supposed to be an expert as an educator or in the field and
if it's the later then what's the point in third level engineering courses?

Personally, what I expect of myself is to know more than what the syllabus requires; but I don't think I need to actively pour every type of foundation possible to know how to progress with teaching the topic.

canned_ulkc

I personally don't feel that technology educators are required to be both. I think that suggesting that points at engineering teachers needing a full blown engineering degree. Just my opinion now - I'm not attacking the idea!

I just think that we are expected to teach to a level, and that level is secondary, not university level. I guess it depends on what you interpret the curriculum and syllabus aims to be.

As I said before, I think there are bigger issues in schools than knowing what is above and beyond the syllabus. I feel a lot of those issues are considerably more pedagogy related than related to teacher's technical ability.

Have to say, I'm enjoying thinking about this.... I just had a thought too that your original point could be very much viewed as a combination of pedagogy and technical (which I hadn't considered before)

10rooney10

inscribe a triangle with sides in the ratio of 6:4:3 in a diameter 90 circle? how is this done?

Figerty

First, get a set square, pencil and compass and then get back to me.

10rooney10

Figerty wrote: »

First, get a set square, pencil and compass and then get back to me.

right figerty, hit me , hows it done?