computing lives - FTP Directory Listing

More documents

Recommendations

Info

A Computer Previous Page | Contents | Zoom in | Zoom out | Front Cover | Search Issue | Next Page M S BE aG F 86 INVISIBLE COMPUTING Figure 3. Paper computing kit. Left: Prototype kit. Right: Electronic popables. and L. Buechley, “Electronic Popables: Exploring Paper-Based Computing through an Interactive Pop-up Book,” Proc. 4th Int’l Conf. Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, ACM Press, pp. 121-128). Technologies like these—ones that, at their best, captivate, empower, and educate people—stand in direct opposition to ubicomp’s tenet of invisibility; the kits, and often the devices constructed with them as well, are intentionally visible objects that reveal the inner workings of technology and explicitly require users’ time and attention. Other researchers have also noted this conflict between invisibility and education (M. Eisenberg et al., “Invisibility Considered Harmful: Revisiting Traditional Principles of Ubiquitous Computing in the Context of Education,” Proc. 4th IEEE Int’l Workshop Wireless, Mobile, and Ubiquitous Technology in Education, IEEE CS Press, pp. 103-110; Y. Rogers, “Moving On from Weiser’s Vision of Calm Computing: Engaging UbiComp Experiences,” Proc. 8th Int’l Conf. Ubiquitous Computing, LNCS 4206, Springer, 2006, pp. 404-421). INVISIBILITY, VISIBILITY, AND DESIGN In our lives there are objects we ignore and objects we treasure. Some vanish into the background and stay there and others please, amuse, COMPUTER and comfort us. There are the forgotten paper clips, printers, and towels, and the beloved dining room tables, sports uniforms, and jewelry. Why should ubicomp—or any other computing discipline, for that matter—consign itself to the ignored, invisible realm? Our research group strives to build systems that fit into people’s aesthetic and emotional lives as much as their technological ones. As Figures 2 and 3 suggest, exploring the aesthetic possibilities of technology provides us with new and unusual ways to excite and engage students. We also investigate aesthetic and emotional dimensions when we develop systems that are less explicitly educational. A recent project along these lines is a unique piece of wallpaper that we constructed with our paper computing kit. The Living Wall is a flat surface built out of ferrous paint, conductive paint, traditional paint, and electronics to which our paper computing modules can be attached. With its wide range of attachable components, the Living Wall can provide lighting, sense information about its environment, communicate with other devices like computers and phones, and act as a large-scale input device. The News Brief “Researchers Build a Wall That Acts Like a Remote Control” on p. 18 has more information on the system and an illustration of its use. The Living Wall is a flexible ubicomp system. However, it also functions as a decorative element in a home. Like the other examples mentioned here, it wasn’t designed to be invisible; it elicits and rewards attention. Invisibility is a narrow design goal. It’s not necessarily a bad one, but it doesn’t capture the full range of technological or creative possibilities. If we as computer scientists and engineers only strive to build invisible systems, we’ll neglect to build important technology that is educational, engaging, and beautiful. We should expand our focus and our rhetoric. Leah Buechley is an assistant professor and AT&T Career Development Professor of Media Arts and Sciences at MIT Media Lab, where she also directs the High-Low Tech research group. Contact her at leah@media. mit.edu. Editor: Albrecht Schmidt, Institute for Computer Science and Business Information Systems, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany; albrecht.schmidt@gmail.com Selected CS articles and columns are available for free at http://ComputingNow.computer.org. Join the IEEE Computer Society www.computer.org A Computer Previous Page | Contents | Zoom in | Zoom out | Front Cover | Search Issue | Next Page M S BE aG F
A Computer Previous Page | Contents | Zoom in | Zoom out | Front Cover | Search Issue | Next Page M S BE aG F EDUCATION Cutting Across the Disciplines Jim Vallino, Rochester Institute of Technology Engineering and computing educators must design curricula that require students to work outside their own domain. Multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary— these terms are all the buzz in engineering and computing curriculum design. Throughout their career, most graduates will work on project teams with people from multiple fields of expertise. Engineering and computing educators must accordingly design curricula that require students to work outside of their own domain. This opportunity can range from small-group collaboration in a single course to large-scale efforts that span every program at an institution. There is often resistance to incorporating multidisciplinary work into curricula. Academic institutions, like most other organizations, have administrative and management entities that can unintentionally construct impediments to cutting across entrenched boundaries. At colleges and universities, fingers usually point at the department as the main culprit. Typical impediments are joint sched- 0018-9162/10/$26.00 © 2010 IEEE uling of cross-listed courses, faculty teaching-load accounting, and support for shared facilities. One reaction to this is a push to eliminate administrative entities. However, this creates a new set of problems when program responsibility becomes ill-defined. At the core, what is required is a commitment to improve students’ education by promoting multidisciplinary teams and projects. The motivation may be provided top-down, especially for institute-wide programs, but in most cases it will be a limited effort led from the bottom up by a small number of individual faculty members. ACCREDITATION PROVIDES A MOTIVATION Whether you believe that multidisciplinary work will be the savior of engineering and computing education or is just another fad that will blend into the curriculum landscape, educators will see it in one form or another in the foreseeable future. Published by the IEEE Computer Society Programs accredited by the Engineering Accreditation Commission of ABET (www.abet.org) must demonstrate that students have “(c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability”; “(d) an ability to function on multidisciplinary teams”; and “(h) the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context.” All three of these program outcomes look beyond a traditional single-discipline curriculum. Because the program is responsible for demonstrating these outcomes, the experiences can’t be haphazardly inserted in the curriculum or based on elective coursework that students may or may not actually take. APRIL 2010 A Computer Previous Page | Contents | Zoom in | Zoom out | Front Cover | Search Issue | Next Page M S BE aG F 87
Page 1 and 2:
›± ¨ª ¨ § ±± § ±± ±´
Page 3 and 4:
A Computer Previous Page | Contents
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38: A Computer Previous Page | Contents
Page 87: A Computer Previous Page | Contents
show all

computing lives - FTP Directory Listing

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?