MT4002 a farse?

MicK10rt

Materials Technology 4002 has to be the most useless and poorly run module in UL. For a start Metalwork and Woodwork teachers are forced to take this module even though all of the material taught is completely irrelevant to us as future teachers as this material does not appear at junior and leaving cert level. We are thrown in with enginnering students and archetects and expected to learn the same material. Another gripe I have is with the online tutorials we must complete. We arn't told how to tackle these and when we ask the lab attendants how, they tell us one way, we go and do it that way and it turns out to be wrong. It is clear to me that the Lecturers and lab attendents aren't preaching the same materials. There must be a breakdown in communication somewhere along the line.

highlydebased

a bit like AW4002 then....!

cson

Every course has one [or more] of these modules that make you scratch your head and wonder what the point is. As harsh as this sounds; you'll just have to deal with it!

hi_im_fil

I had that module 3-4 years ago, didn't learn a huge amount from it tbh. Its one of those modules you just have to struggle on through it.

overthebar1

Did this module last year too. I don't think it was that pointless tbh. I mean i think the material they cover is relevant even if it seems like it not. Its just the way they go about the module is terrible.
Woodwork and Metalwork teachers would be expected to be experts in there field and not just know about the junior and leaving cert syllabus.

Catch15

I've suffered through two of those Materials modules as a Woodwork teacher and I agree 100% about how badly they're run, but what I do think they can be useful in some way. It's part of being a technology teacher to know about material properties, but the depth and methods of assessment don't suit us.

I believe it's going to be changed, but maybe it already has been and it's still cr*p!! I'd say the course director would want to look into it, as the people running the module are only doing what they're told.

MicK10rt

overthebar1 wrote: »

Did this module last year too. I don't think it was that pointless tbh. I mean i think the material they cover is relevant even if it seems like it not. Its just the way they go about the module is terrible.
Woodwork and Metalwork teachers would be expected to be experts in there field and not just know about the junior and leaving cert syllabus.

would you not agree that the depth of knowledge and type of knowledge required by both metalwork and woodwork teachers is far less than that of an engineer or architect?

MicK10rt

Would anyone also agree that the solas tutorials need to be axed as often the student can have the right method and answers to a problem, but because solas is so particular with its acceptance of calculations, the student is awarded no marks? As has happened to me now on TWO occasions

I did that subject. It is actually usefull for what I ended up doing after my degree.
I've no sympathy for you. Quit complaining on the internet and study the damn subject

MicK10rt

Deleted User wrote: »

I did that subject. It is actually usefull for what I ended up doing after my degree.
I've no sympathy for you. Quit complaining on the internet and study the damn subject

If you have nothing constructive to say then say nothing. Get off the internet and learn some manners!

Figerty

MicK10rt

It's obvious that the benefit of a good university education is lost on you. The ideas of an education is to broaden your experience and knowledge. Just because every ounce of knowledge you learns isn't relevant to every day you will work as a teacher doesn't mean it's not going to influence your professional life.

markflynn101 comes online and states he found it useful and you jump down his throat. Learn some manners yourself. That was constructive criticism but you didn’t like it.

Look at it this way, if you don’t like the way the subject is taught, then ensure that you never replicate such a poor delivery method.

How can non of the module below not be relevent to you as a Engieering or Construction teacher. Over 90% of this material is relevent to you in your career.

By the way I have no connection with UL, lecturerr or any of the courses list. You're reply to Mick Flynn annoyed me.

Broaden your mind.


Cognitive (Knowledge, Understanding, Application, Analysis, Evaluation, Synthesis)
Define the properties of materials like strength, stiffness, toughness etc. Explain how these properties can be measured. Describe the basic science that underlies each property. Conduct basic materials selection for design applications.

Affective (Attitudes and Values)
The mathematical analysis is kept as simple as possible while still retaining the essential physical understanding, and still arriving at results, which although approximate, are useful. Case Studies and laboratory experiments are widely used to demonstr

Psychomotor (Physical Skills)
8-10 pratical laboratory experiments form the backbone of the module. These all require students to apply the scientific method.

RyanK

Deleted User wrote: »

I did that subject. It is actually usefull for what I ended up doing after my degree.
I've no sympathy for you. Quit complaining on the internet and study the damn subject

MicK10rt wrote: »

If you have nothing constructive to say then say nothing. Get off the internet and learn some manners!

Don't know about you MicK, but the first line is constructive...

Anyway, I think most students believe they have at least one module per semester that they think is useless, including myself. But who knows, it might come in handy in your career.

overthebar1

MicK10rt wrote: »

would you not agree that the depth of knowledge and type of knowledge required by both metalwork and woodwork teachers is far less than that of an engineer or architect?

I believe that yes you would have to have almost as good a knowledge of these subjects as they would. You are doing an engineering degree WITH teaching. Therefore you are basically an engineer who should have such a good knowledge of your field that you are eligible to teach it. Learning the syllabus of the junior and leaving cert to a high degree does not qualify you to teach.

MicK10rt

overthebar1 wrote: »

I believe that yes you would have to have almost as good a knowledge of these subjects as they would. You are doing an engineering degree WITH teaching. Therefore you are basically an engineer who should have such a good knowledge of your field that you are eligible to teach it. Learning the syllabus of the junior and leaving cert to a high degree does not qualify you to teach.

Alright I accept your point there. But it is still my opinion that a portion of this module is irrelevant to future teachers. It is my strong opinion that a new module should be exturded from this one. A module which is wholey geared towoards our subject area. This new module could focus on young peoples learning in the engineering field and could focus on material which is relevent to them as learners. We could be learning material which we can pass on to the students that they will enjoy and which will motivate them to explore the engineering field. This is simply MY opinion and I know that some people will not agree so.

overthebar1

MicK10rt wrote: »

Alright I accept your point there. But it is still my opinion that a portion of this module is irrelevant to future teachers. It is my strong opinion that a new module should be exturded from this one. A module which is wholey geared towoards our subject area. This new module could focus on young peoples learning in the engineering field and could focus on material which is relevent to them as learners. We could be learning material which we can pass on to the students that they will enjoy and which will motivate them to explore the engineering field. This is simply MY opinion and I know that some people will not agree so.

I do agree with you here. The only problem being that this module, along with a huge amount of modules in the college, is divided between about 4 different courses. I believe this module is divided up with Woodwork/Metalwork teaching, Product Design and possibly Construction. Its unfortunate and not ideal but its just the way the university do things in order to accommodate the most courses possible in one module. In an ideal world you would not do a module mixed with any other course in order to get the most out of it which is relevant to you. Unfortunately this isn't possible so we all just have to put up with it I guess.

TBH I dont think that students know what subjects will be relevant to them or not. Some subjects you may use every day and some never again.
The people who put the course together would be in a better position to make the judgement of whether or not the subject is important for your future career

Ginge Young

In terms of content it is relevant to a certain degree, but the depth it goes to (while we are expected to be experts in our field) is too much. I am a fourth year and I can say that clearly.

I'm quite frankly disgusted that nothing has changed with the module. I complained about it when I was in first year taking MT4001 and in second year taking MT4002. I provided constructive feedback about the module and how it was marked and it seems that none of it was taken on board. (I also know I wasn't alone in the feedback).

One of my biggest issues with it was we had to use the results from the materials we tested ourselves for the calculations on sulis. The problem with this was, if one particular group got a result wrong it threw everything off which made it difficult for a lot of people to get into the "correct answer" boundary. Don't know if that still goes on or not, given that the point of sulis is to test our application of the formulas and should thus not hinge on whether or not someone messes up in a lab.

But yes again, I don't have a problem with the content as much (even though I found it extremely difficult to engage with given the extremely didactic methods employed in the module) but the structure of the module was always an issue for me.

jeremyr62

I am one of the lecturers of MT4002. We get a lot of feedback but this is the first time I've seen it appear in boards.

The modules (MT4002 in the Spring and MT4023 in the Autumn) are based on two text books that I consider to be the best text books in the field of introduction to materials. The content of the modules is based on the books. The content is consistent with other Universities. We know this because we benchmark the content against other similar courses run at other (international) Universities. Our approach is different in that we conduct lab experiments. In many other Universities there is no lab component at all to service taught materials courses. Despite the flaws of our approach with the SULIS issues and poor observations/data quality affecting the marks, we think this is a small price to pay to ensure students receive exposure to the 8 lab experiments. Logistically this is not easy and SULIS is the only way we can assess over 3000 pieces of coursework.

The module has changed over the years. The content is similar but there are far more resources available to help with the understanding.

It really isn’t the role of a University course to teach the leaving cert syllabus. We would hope to encourage the students to see far beyond that.

Ginge Young

jeremyr62 wrote: »

Despite the flaws of our approach with the SULIS issues and poor observations/data quality affecting the marks, we think this is a small price to pay to ensure students receive exposure to the 8 lab experiments.

Can I ask what value is there in the exposure if the subsequent calculations cannot be conducted correctly or in so much as to say that we could not get them correct on Sulis?

One suggestion I gave 2 years ago (I don't know if you have implemented it) was that after we conducted all of our experiments and gathered our data, a data sheet detailing the "ideal" results, or results gained by the lab technicians etc be circulated for the purpose of the calculations which thus eliminates the issues regarding data quality and in fact improves the SULIS system itself.

jeremyr62

Because labwork is not just about getting the "right" answer..

From time to time we do circulate answers from previous labs.

Ginge Young

I never said that.

Logically speaking the Lab work is there so that we can learn the process by which different materials are tested and the machines used to do so, gaining experience in the handling and use of them also.

SULIS is designed to assess our knowledge and use of the calculations. That is it. If that is what it is assessing then we should at least be provided with values that will actually produce the correct answers for us.

Leaving it down to a situation where by if one group messes up, we all mess up is hardly practical and should really not be acceptable.

People are not going to go into labs to intentionally mess up results if you provide us with the correct ones for the samples following the lab itself.

You have acknowledged that the data flaws are affecting the marks, which is expected to happen, let's face it, we are not experts and it is the first time we ever conduct the experiments, so the idea that you still conduct a form of assessment based off of something you acknowledge to be flawed making it impossible for some to get the correct answers is irresponsible and is not assessing by any measure by which it should.

jeremyr62

If students make mistakes and make poor observations they get the answer wrong.

We point out that students have a responsibility to everyone in the class to make the best possible observations as others will be relying on them too.

This really isn't an issue for most labs anyway. The tolerance bands are generous. Most incorrect answers are caused by the use of inappropriate units.

Ginge Young

Yeh, it's always the students fault I guess.

None the less you have acknowledged that it is an issue. I'm sorry but I don't see why anyones results should be effected by someone who is doing the experiment for the very first time in their lives and gets a value wrong.

Your point about the responsibility is irrelevant because as it is our first time using these machines and conducting our experiments it not always possible to make good observations.

Guess we will have to agree to disagree but you still have not answered properly about giving out the proper data sheet after labs.

What are the negatives to it?

Are the SULIS tutorials not for assessing an individuals use of the calculations rather than the mess up of one group/student?

jeremyr62

Pleae remember that most other Universities do far less lab work than we do in MT4002. The lab experiments are a very positive attribute of MT4002.

I don't disagree that the way we do the labs and SULIS isn't perfect. However it's the best we can do atm and we review continuously.

Always giving out a set of "correct" data would reduce the impact of the labs in my opinion.

Pablo_

Data is cleaned up between labs and sulis test I think Ginge, like when totally erratic figures are on the data, i used do that sometimes anyway, the bands of tolerance were fair narrow on some tests.

Eg. tensile strength (MPa)

1 220
2 202
3 .06
4 199
5 207
6 234
7 231
8 pumpkins
9 223
10 212


......:D

deise go deo

I am doing that module, I dont mind the content, but how its run is just frustrating, Assessments over Suluis, Random tests in Lectures every so often.

Oh and one of the lab assistants said that Glass is a really slow flowing Liquid which is pure Bull.

NTMK

deise go deo wrote: »

Oh and one of the lab assistants said that Glass is a really slow flowing Liquid which is pure Bull.

It is a common enough to be called a supercooled liquid. some believe it is others believe it is an amorphous solid. so i wouldnt call it pure bull its a very common misconception due to older glass usually being denser at the bottom than the top

deise go deo

NTMK wrote: »

It is a common enough to be called a supercooled liquid. some believe it is others believe it is an amorphous solid. so i wouldnt call it pure bull its a very common misconception due to older glass usually being denser at the bottom than the top

Pure Bull is the only fair description.

What is common and what is correct are two separate things.

The notion that glass is a slow moving liquid came from a mistranslation by a german phisisist in the 18th centuary.

Glass is an amorphous Solid not a liquid. Old glass being thicker at the bottom, as the example of old cathedral windows goes, is a result of poor glass casting methods in the middle ages, In Mediaeval times panes of glass were often made by the Crown glass process. A lump of molten glass was rolled, blown, expanded, flattened and finally spun into a disc before being cut into panes. The sheets were thicker towards the edge of the disc and were usually installed with the heavier side at the bottom.

The reason the thick side is at the bottom in general is that you would naturally put the thick side at the bottom when putting glass in a frame in the first place. It was always thick side down, it dident flow over time.

Several Solids are recognized to have an amorphous structure, this dose not make them liquid, it makes them an amorphous solid.

Amorphous Solid

So where do you think Glass fits? Liquid or amorphous solid?

NTMK

deise go deo wrote: »

Pure Bull is the only fair description.

What is common and what is correct are two separate things.


Glass is an amorphous Solid not a liquid. Several Solids are recognized to have an amorphous structure, this dose not make them liquid, it makes them an amorphous solid.

Amorphous Solid

So where do you think Glass fits? Liquid or amorphous solid?

Its amorphous

You do know an amorphous solid isnt technically a solid either. its a mid point between solid and a liquid.

EDIT: But also keep in mind that not all the lab techs are material scientists either so the mistake can be forgiven

I did this module 2 years ago and the data you recieve in the usually labs work for sulis. They change the parameters to what data is obtained if there is bad data we were told and another groups data was given to us.

deise go deo

NTMK wrote: »

Its amorphous

You do know an amorphous solid isnt technically a solid either. its a mid point between solid and a liquid.

Amorphous Solid's are solids, They are just a different type of solid to most. You can have Amorphous or crystalline solids, both are solids.

The midpoint between a liquid and a solid is the 'pasty' stage above the liquidis line where crystalisation begins to occur, This is not the same as an amorphous solid.

The main point is that glass is not a liquid and does not flow.

NTMK

deise go deo wrote: »

Amorphous Solid's are solids, They are just a different type of solid to most. You can have Amorphous or crystalline solids, both are solids.

The midpoint between a liquid and a solid is the 'pasty' stage above the liquidis line where crystalisation begins to occur, This is not the same as an amorphous solid.

The main point is that glass is not a liquid and does not flow.

Solids are highly organised structures

Liquids are completely unorganised structure

amorphous solids are inbetween they're organised but not as much as a solids and they can flow albeit very very slowly

this link explains basically what glass is
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fact-fiction-glass-liquid