FIRST Robotics Crowns Great Lakes Champs
You can read all you want to about a FIRST Robotics competition.
About how it brings teams of bright high school students together with science and engineering mentors. About how it shows them that science and engineering careers can be a lot of fun.
About how it celebrates science and technology -- and teamwork and perserverance and sportsmanship -- in an atmosphere reminiscent of a state championship athletic event. (Heck, even better, more like college -- with professional lighting, sound and announcers.) And about the way it celebrates and teaches skills that most students are likely to actually USE in their REAL LIVES, as opposed to the finer points of the goal-line formation or the pick and roll or the hanging curve ball, which only a tiny fraction of high school students will ever use in their professional lives.
But to really understand it, you have to go to a big regional competition. Which is exactly how I spent my Saturday at Eastern Michigan University, with about 3,000 other proudly nerdy robot fans at FIRST Robotics' Great Lakes Regional.
This year's FIRST game, called Overdrive, saw robots racing around a 27-by-52-foot racetrack. Three robot teams make up a "red alliance," while on the other side three other teams make up a "blue alliance." To make the game more complicated, over the middle of the racetrack was an overpass on which were placed four giant Pilates balls, two for either alliance. Alliances earned bonus points for tossing the balls over the overpass, and at the end by placing balls back on the overpass. To keep the competition from becoming a simple demolition derby, there were penalties for excessive contact between robots -- some contact is allowed, but intentional ramming isn't.
For the first day and a half of round robin competition the alliances are thrown together on a random basis. The top eight teams in this round robin phase automatically advance to the quarterfinals.
Then, at noon Saturday, there's a bit of psychological drama, as the top eight teams ask two other teams apiece to join their alliance.
After that matchup session, there was an hour break before the quarterfinals began at 1 p.m. I spent that time in the pits, mostly with Team 27, called Team Rush, from the Clarkston schools and a math and science academy at Clarkston called OSMTech. This large group of several dozen students learns from mentor engineers and machinists. (That's the team pictured.)
In the end, after a day of competition that left judges and competitors exhausted and the robots sputtering, an alliance of Milford-Lakeland, Romulus and Novi high schools won the regional.
They're now eligible for the national finals in Atlanta next month.
Runners-up were an alliance of Ypsilanti Willow Run, Utica and Madison Heights Bishop Foley.
In all 63 teams competed in the regional -- mostly from Michigan, but there were also teams from Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and even Santiago, Chile in South America.
Teams get six weeks to build their robot after receiving details on the current year's game in a kickoff video simulcast to sites around the country. The teams also pick up their starter parts at the January kickoff. All teams must stop working on their robots and lock them up after six weeks, eliminating any advantage from entering a later regional competition.
The folks from Team Rush told me it takes about $60,000 a year to field a competitive team, making finding sponsors crucial for most schools.
The games are designed by scientific luminaries such as Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Woody Flowers and NASA exploratory robotics director Dave Lavery.
The Great Lakes Regional was the last of four regionals held in Michigan this month. The first was for rookie teams only played at Kettering University; the second was the Detroit Regional at Wayne State; and the third was at Grand Valley State University March 20-22.
The Great Lakes Regional tends to draw traditionally strong teams – and in five of the last six years, an International Champion has come from the state of Michigan and gone through the Great Lakes Regional to get there.
Youth participants also compete for other awards, including for community service, marketing, web site design and computer animation – plus the ultimate Chairman’s Award, won Saturday by Team T3, a team comprised of students from a variety of Oakland County schools, including the Waterford district, Holly, Clarkston and Brandon.
CONGRATULATIONS TO KYLE HUGHES AND "TEAM RUSH" AT OSMTECH AT CLARKSTON HIGH SCHOOL!
More about the competition overall at www.usfirst.org.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
AIM Program "Been there, Done That!
Computer models ease Ford workers' tasks, raise quality
BY SARAH A. WEBSTER • FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITER • March 26, 2008
If you want to know why Ford Motor Co.'s quality is improving so much, visit the automaker's virtual labs, where engineers use computer models to make sure autoworkers can assemble cars and trucks, as well as thousands of their moving parts, properly and with ease.
On Tuesday, Ford showed off its secret virtual operations to the media in its manufacturing development center on Mercury Road in Dearborn.
The facilities help Ford re-create automotive factories, parts and cars that are lifelike -- with the exception of their bright candy colors -- so that virtual autoworkers can assemble them and pinpoint problems in the computer world, which is less expensive and faster than the real world.
Dan Hettel, chief engineer for vehicle operations at Ford, said the operations have taken on increasing importance as the automaker tries to get new cars and trucks to market faster and with better quality.
"There's just no time to do it any other way," he said. "We create a whole virtual factory where we build the vehicles."
The approach has reduced the amount of expensive and time-consuming work Ford has had to do with pre-production vehicles. Vehicles now reach that stage with fewer ergonomic and other problems, Hettel said.
This sophisticated computer-aided approach helped Ford improve its quality by 11% last year, while the industry improved just 2%, according to a 2007 study by Global Quality Research System. The study was commissioned by Ford.
Ford's virtual software, developed with the help of German supplier Siemens AG, also includes a digital human model, which is essentially a smart avatar that records critical facts for engineering the process required to build a car or truck. That includes facts such as the stress on joints to move a heavy part or how far an autoworker must reach to install a bolt or wire.
The data are then used to make the job simpler and less stressful on the body, said Allison Stephens, Ford's ergonomics technical specialist with vehicle operations manufacturing engineering.
"Our digital employees -- Jack and Jill -- are helping us predict the ergonomic effect of long-term repetitive motions," she said. "The impact on health and safety metrics, as well as on quality, has been tremendous."
The more difficult a job is to complete physically, she explained, the less likely it is to be completed properly. So Ford uses the data to make tasks easy enough to be done correctly during the time allotted.
The automaker also wants to ensure that jobs are easy to perform ergonomically to reduce injuries, which results in employee turnover. Tasks are also more likely to be completed correctly when there is more stability and less rotation of personnel, Hettel said.
Ford has been advancing its approach to digital ergonomics work since it began using virtual tools to improve ergonomics in 2000. The company is also collaborating with the University of Michigan as part of a technology consortium as well as participating in the Virtual Soldier Research program with the Department of Defense and the University of Iowa.
Ford also collaborates on some aspects of digital modeling with General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC through the U.S. Council for Automotive Research, an umbrella organization for collaborative research.
Stephens said Ford is so advanced in its application of the virtual tools that Toyota Motor Corp. recently called to seek out its expertise.
"There's a desire to advance our human model," she said.
Contact SARAH A. WEBSTER at 313-222-5394 or swebster@freepress.com.
BY SARAH A. WEBSTER • FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITER • March 26, 2008
If you want to know why Ford Motor Co.'s quality is improving so much, visit the automaker's virtual labs, where engineers use computer models to make sure autoworkers can assemble cars and trucks, as well as thousands of their moving parts, properly and with ease.
On Tuesday, Ford showed off its secret virtual operations to the media in its manufacturing development center on Mercury Road in Dearborn.
The facilities help Ford re-create automotive factories, parts and cars that are lifelike -- with the exception of their bright candy colors -- so that virtual autoworkers can assemble them and pinpoint problems in the computer world, which is less expensive and faster than the real world.
Dan Hettel, chief engineer for vehicle operations at Ford, said the operations have taken on increasing importance as the automaker tries to get new cars and trucks to market faster and with better quality.
"There's just no time to do it any other way," he said. "We create a whole virtual factory where we build the vehicles."
The approach has reduced the amount of expensive and time-consuming work Ford has had to do with pre-production vehicles. Vehicles now reach that stage with fewer ergonomic and other problems, Hettel said.
This sophisticated computer-aided approach helped Ford improve its quality by 11% last year, while the industry improved just 2%, according to a 2007 study by Global Quality Research System. The study was commissioned by Ford.
Ford's virtual software, developed with the help of German supplier Siemens AG, also includes a digital human model, which is essentially a smart avatar that records critical facts for engineering the process required to build a car or truck. That includes facts such as the stress on joints to move a heavy part or how far an autoworker must reach to install a bolt or wire.
The data are then used to make the job simpler and less stressful on the body, said Allison Stephens, Ford's ergonomics technical specialist with vehicle operations manufacturing engineering.
"Our digital employees -- Jack and Jill -- are helping us predict the ergonomic effect of long-term repetitive motions," she said. "The impact on health and safety metrics, as well as on quality, has been tremendous."
The more difficult a job is to complete physically, she explained, the less likely it is to be completed properly. So Ford uses the data to make tasks easy enough to be done correctly during the time allotted.
The automaker also wants to ensure that jobs are easy to perform ergonomically to reduce injuries, which results in employee turnover. Tasks are also more likely to be completed correctly when there is more stability and less rotation of personnel, Hettel said.
Ford has been advancing its approach to digital ergonomics work since it began using virtual tools to improve ergonomics in 2000. The company is also collaborating with the University of Michigan as part of a technology consortium as well as participating in the Virtual Soldier Research program with the Department of Defense and the University of Iowa.
Ford also collaborates on some aspects of digital modeling with General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC through the U.S. Council for Automotive Research, an umbrella organization for collaborative research.
Stephens said Ford is so advanced in its application of the virtual tools that Toyota Motor Corp. recently called to seek out its expertise.
"There's a desire to advance our human model," she said.
Contact SARAH A. WEBSTER at 313-222-5394 or swebster@freepress.com
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Did You Know III-Updated June 2007
The various "Did YOU Know" videos have been "posted" here before BUT THIS MESSAGE is well worth repeating!
Friday, March 07, 2008
Behold Students 2.0 (In their OWN Words)
Students 2.0 |
Mini-Term: Dropping the Schedule
Posted: 05 Mar 2008 02:10 PM CST
A few weeks ago, my school embarked on a grand experiment entitled mini-term. Rather than have 6 classes per day, rather than divide learning into 45 minute blocks, we opened the schedule and challenged teachers to engage students in their passion. The experiment was, for most, a success and provided students wonderful opportunities to learn about and explore topics off the path of the normal curriculum as well as complete projects that could not be handled in a traditional classroom setting.
The Hard Details
Mini-terms were taught by teams of two or three teachers. These teachers were encouraged to teach their passion and were free to design their courses around topics of their choosing, with an emphasis on cross-departmental work. The only guidelines for teachers were broad such as a required reading and writing component. The classes ranged from 18 to 25 students each from all four grade levels and met all day, every day for a four-day week. Students selected their top 6 choices, and were sorted into classes accordingly. Teachers were encouraged to take field trips, and engage in hands on projects.
My Experience
The class I participated in was called “Zen and the Art of Furniture Design”, it was taught my a science teacher (Mr. Skinner) with an independent passion for carpentry and an art teacher (Mr. Huber) with years of experience in scenic design and construction. Our class was one big project: design, build, and paint an Adirondack chair, bench and table. Our class was split into two groups of nine to each build one set of furniture.
The first day was spent on the design phase: modifying the stock chair design and planning paint schemes. For the design of the chair, the two groups took different approaches. The other group drew their modifications on the teacher provided plans and then built a scale model of their design. My group took advantage of my CAD skills to modify the original design and produce new drawings and renderings. For paint, each group was required to choose an artist and paint the furniture to resemble that artist. Part of my group spent the day researching and picking an artist, finding work by that artist, and finally tracing that work onto a scale plan.
As we were working through the process, we found many opportunities for incidental learning. One student taught another student drafting skills that were learned in our architecture course so that the original plans could be annotated. Another student experimented on the Wacom tablets in the art computer lab, learning how to control pen size in Photoshop using pressure, then tracing printed artwork into the computer. This learning was spontaneous, not assessed and in some cases not even visible in the final project, but it was learning through doing and the students left with a new skill.
The next day we moved into the shop and began the actual construction. This included ripping lumber, cutting boards to the correct length (and determining those lengths from the plans our group produced), sanding the boards, and assembling them into actual furniture. Due to my technical theatre background, I was right at home in the shop, but still I saw something that surprised me: 18 students all working — no breaks, no “we don’t have anything to do”, no “watch and criticize”, but 18 students all working towards common goals, and enjoying themselves at the same time. It was a truly breathtaking sight, students who had never touched a power tool in their lives were ripping lumber on a table saw and screwing boards together.
Finally, we were able to get dirty and begin painting. The artists in the group went to work tracing the outlines onto the furniture so that we could paint them in. With three students to a piece, we were all busy turning bare wood into a tribute to our artists, and learning about those artists at the same time by both reproducing their work and studying it to produce our color pallet.
We finished with about an hour left in the day. Just enough time to admire our work. After three days of hard work in the shop, we were all tired. But, I have never seen a prouder group of students. We moved the product of our hard work into the chosen spots on campus, and patted ourselves on the back for a job well done.
Why Mini-Term Was Powerful
I can honestly say that I have never had a more immersive learning experience in school. By allowing students to only focus on this one project they weren’t distracted and were well rested. The students were able to enjoy the Zen of the project - the beautiful, in the moment, experience of hard, dedicated work.
By giving students one overarching project, learning was able to happen through experience. Some of us learned about different artists while researching our paint scheme. Some of us learned about paint mixing and color pallets. We all learned how to solve the problems the project presented and the skills to face those problems in the future.
There was no grade, there was no homework, there was no test — the assessments were thrown out of the window. But, it was a stronger experience because of that. Students didn’t fear failure, they weren’t scared to learn something for the experience of learning. There was however a final product, and one that the students could be proud of. Every day, I experience the immense pleasure of seeing students sitting on the chair and bench that I helped build. And, that is something that I can be proud of. How often do our students get to be proud of their school work?
What I Would Change
I was fortunate to be in of the most successful mini-terms. The less successful classes seemed to be those that didn’t embrace the new format and attempted to fill the time with traditional classroom instruction. Students simply can’t sit at a desk for 6 hours a day learning about the same subject matter. Those mini-terms that realized this and used project-based learning to keep students involved provided the best learning experiences. I would work to ensure that this was the case across the board.
I would also include students in the planning and teaching of the mini-terms. One of the best things about my mini-term was that once the initial instructions were given, a large portion of the learning was student-to-student. Each student was able to bring their own skill set to the table — whether it be in design, drawing, CAD, painting, or construction — and students taught these skills to each other. I would work to encourage student involvement in instruction earlier in the process. Students with an interest in teaching and passion for a topic could be provided the opportunity to work with their teachers on the design and execution of a mini-term.
Finally, and this is the smallest issue by far, I would work with teachers to eliminate the pre-break crunch that occurred before mini-term. With students over-burdened the week prior, they entered mini-term tired and resentful. While no other homework was assigned that week, fear over losing their students for a week caused many teachers to assign stealth homework in the form of overdue assignments created by the crunch.
Mini-term was a powerful experience for students and while many of them may not realize it yet, they will be able to build off of their experiences for the rest of their lives. The project truly embraced the kind of experiential and project-based learning we need to produce 21st century students who can think creatively.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Sunday, March 02, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)