There is a different sort of Maker being shaped at UC Berkeley.
“The question is no longer: can we make it (a product)?” says Dr. Bjoern Hartmann, assistant professor at the University and instructor for the Interactive Device Design class. “Instead, it has changed to what can we make that’s worthwhile?”
The Interactive Device Design class is part of two classes (the other one is Critical Making) to fashion student Makers at the University. The classes introduce students to Maker tools and teach them to critically evaluate the Maker culture.
To do this, they bridge gaps in existing pedagogy practice.
Bridging Gaps In Pedagogy
The first gap is the one between theory and practice.
While Critical Making incorporates equal amounts of instruction and practice, the Interactive Device Design class is focused on making products from an “initial napkin sketch to working prototype.”
The latter class consists of two parts: the first part familiarizes students with tools of the Maker revolution, such as 3D printers and laser cutters, and the second part transforms student ideas to finished products.
Connected devices are encouraged because they teach students to think about design in unconventional terms. Hartmann provides the example of sparkplugs, which function in isolation within a machine. “The design constraints are to make it robust,” says Hartmann. However, such products are the exception rather than the norm in an increasingly connected society, where hardware appliances are increasingly controlled by devices such as smartphones.
For Zach Wasson, a graduate student in the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science department at the University, the emphasis on connected design drew him towards the class.
“With a lot of my electrical engineering classes, you simply created the circuit,” says Wasson. “Here, you need a nice case, nice form factor, nice electronics, and nice software to go along with it.”
In this class, Wasson and his colleague, Jackie Leverett, are creating a hydrogenerator, a smart shower device that measures the amount of water consumed while bathing. According to Leverett, attending the class helped them identify the nature and types of interaction for their product.
The second gap relates to the one between humanities and sciences.
According to instructor Eric Paulos, the Critical Making class teaches students to critically evaluate the impact of new products on society. The emphasis is on flexible thinking. “Instead of coding an app (to solve problems), engineers are encouraged to think flexibly,” says Paulos, adding that the tools and thinking processes taught in the class enable engineers to “fluently” attack the future. This fluency is a function of multiple perspectives that are not restricted to engineers or computer scientists.
“Engineers are good at problem-solving,” says Paulos, who is an artist and engineer. “However, some problems invite a furthering of the landscape (of tools and skill sets). This class teaches them how to value that contribution.”
As part of this strategy, Paulos has designed a unique set of activities (such as students drawing caricatures of each other) and practice sessions for students to evaluate and make objects. The final array of projects produced by the first set of students out of that class is testimony to their contribution.
The Maker Perspective
Both classes complement each other.
“In my mind, this (Interactive Device Design) is a much more tense version of Critical Making,” says Lanssie Ma, who attended both classes. According to her Critical Making is an exploratory class where products are created with a theme. On the other hand, Interactive Device Design is a focused class because it takes an idea the “whole way.” The eclectic mix of backgrounds also provides interesting learning opportunities.
Ma, who worked as an artist for twelve years before coming back to graduate school for another degree in computer science, says her drawing skills have come in handy while storyboarding business use cases for their product.
The unconventional nature of the class is reflected in the pedagogy and student-professor interaction. In more ways than one, the class embodies the flipped classroom concept.
On a recent Tuesday, Hartmann stood on a chair and shouted instructions to his students, who were busy soldering. The students stopped and listened to him. Once his instructions were done, Hartmann, a short and energetic man, briskly resumed his student rounds.
According to Chris Myers, lab manager of the class, engineering students tend to follow a sequential approach to solving problems. This means that they apply the right formula and analysis to come up with the right approach. “We do more iterative things,” he says. In practical terms, this means heavy design experimentation and 3D printing of multiple product versions. The latter activity is a bit of hard sell for Myers, who says that students are always hesitant to print incomplete versions of their products. “They always tell me: This is not ready!” he says.
But, according to Myers, 3D prints of their initial iterations help students discover their mistakes early. Sometimes, students learn obvious facts. For example, Myers says he recently showed students how a single screw holds an entire mouse together.
Is A Single Class Enough?
While connected products require an understanding of and expertise in multiple technologies and perspectives, a single class (which is currently restricted to thirty students) may not be enough to provide a thorough grounding in technology and a critical evaluation of the Maker culture.
“One class is sufficient is to spark someone’s initiative and motivation,” argues Hartmann. According to him, the Maker culture and theoretical practice have a complementary relationship. “The more Making experience you gather, the more theoretical knowledge you want to want to gather,” he says. “I don’t see it as taking a class and getting a badge.” However, Hartmann says there are several, other courses (consolidated into a single certificate course) that enable students understand more about the role of design in engineering.
Paulos frames the Critical Making class as an “invitation to a longer process, a series of classes that would disentangle pieces taught in this class.” During his class (which was conducted last summer), Paulos did not take attendance. “If they (students) miss out, they miss out on making something,” he says.
