User talk:Gekko11/sandbox

Do you know that there's been significant activity on the Engineering psychology page since June 28? How will you deal with that? Dr Ashton --IO252Prof (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Since my last post (above) I've looked carefully at your forum discussion on Bb. I think that the group has missed that I'm suggesting that you abandon the format that you seem to be sticking to. By format I mean the general overview of some topics in engineering psych which is on your sandbox page right now. As I said in the feedback to the critique and resources assignment, you are attempting to rewrite the entire article on Engineering psychology. This would be a several thousand word exercise. Also, the format you have chosen is duplicating many other pages in Wikipedia. I suggested that you read the Stanton article and the Lich, Polzella and Boff article and base your edit on defining the differences between engineering psych,human factors and ergonomics (you would need to do some lirbrary research also). This would support the work of the existing Wikipedia editors in what they are doing to the page (rather than add material which will likely be deleted by other editors). I suggested this in the feedback to the critique assignment and not doing this is why you received the grade you did on the resources assignment. If you continue to stick to this format (rewriting the entire engineering psych page) I won't approve you posting your sandbox material onto the engineering psyc page (and you'll get the same grade as I did before). I said all of this in my feedback to you or in comments in emails to individual students.

I'm very confused as to why you continue to stick with something that you know will get a bad grade from me and virtually ignore the direction I give you. Dr Ashton -IO252Prof (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

=Professor's Comments on sandbox page=

I am very impressed with the gains you have made over earlier efforts -- especially in the definition of ep hf and ergonomics. I've given you some help below.

Man, men. Women do these jobs also.

There are typos and errors and poor writing which detract from the grade you'll see on Bb. I've alerted you to them below and expect you to fix them before you move your material to the article.

Finally, you've kept to the textbook a great deal. The textbook is okay for Wikipedia but not for this class. That will lower your grade also.

I hope that you can make these changes and add your material to the Wikipedia article by Monday night. I would suggest that individual users (logged into Wikipedia) make the changes to the article and incorporate your material in with the existing material. After than you'll need to watch the page to see how other editors respond to your changes and possibly discussing the changes on the talk page.

>>>>>Although the comparability of these terms and many others have been a topic of debate, we can see the differences of these fields in the applications of their respective fields.

Both in college writing and Wikipedia, avoid personal pronouns.

>>>>Engineering psychologists strive to match equipment requirements with the capabilities of human operators[2]. They are known to be effective with regard to cumulative trauma disorders such as repetitive wrist movements using electronic scanners in a grocery checkout and repetitive motion disorders prevalent among office workers who use computer terminals and among certain types of factory workers[2]. Another example of engineering psychology is the redesign of the mailbag used by letter carriers [2]. It was discovered that, a mailbag with a waist-support strap, and a double bag that requires the use of both shoulders, reduces muscle fatigue[2]. Many engineering psychologists deal with improving or solving the relationship between man and equipment.

Engineering psychologists strive to match equipment requirements with the capabilities of human operators by changing the design of the equipment[2]. An example of this matching was the redesign of the mailbags used by letter carriers. Engineering psychologists discovered that mailbag with a waist-support strap, and a double bag that requires the use of both shoulders, reduces muscle fatigue[2]. Another example involves the cumulative trauma disorders grocery checkout workers suffered as the result of repetitive wrist movements using electronic scanners. Engineering psychologists found that the optimal checkout station design would allow for workers to easily use either hand to distribute the workload between both wrists[2].

>>>>>The field of ergonomics is based on scientific studies of ordinary people in work situations and is applied to the design of processes and machines, to the layout of work places, to methods of work, and to the control of the physical environment, in order to achieve greater efficiency of both men and machines

this is a great definition of ergonomics, but they you give two examples which could fit the definition of engineering psych. can you find examples which focus upon methods of work (fitting people to machines) instead of equipment re-design (engineering psych)?

>>>>>Human factors involve interdisciplinary scientific research

involves

>>>>>>several fields such as mechanical engineers, psychologists, and industrial engineers

mechanical engineering, psychology, and industrial engineering

>>>>>Engineering psychology was projected out from experimental psychology

The field of engineering psychology developed from experimental psychology

>>>>>What most people do not assume is that engineering psychology is reducing the role that humans play more and more

What most people do not realize is that engineering psychology is reducing the role that humans play [in what?] at an increasing rate.

>>>>>Mass transit is ran by computers, and airplanes such as Boeing 777 are also incapable of being overrode if needed to

Mass transit is run by computers, and automatic controls on airplanes (such as Boeing 777) are incapable of being overrode by human operators.

>>>>>Workers’ skills are now diminishing because they are not using them as they used to[2]. However; many researchers are fighting against having computers be in more control than humans because computers can fail too[2]. If computers fail and workers are not able to override them, there is a significant exposure to threat.

This idea just doesn't make sense -- probably because you are sticking this idea at the end of a paragraph on something else. Either delete it or expand in into its own paragraph (like in my example).

-IO252Prof (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)