partnerships were organized from highest to lowest based on theoverall lab scores and the functionality of the receiver. Factors such as habitual absenteeism,tardiness or events such as problems between partners were identified and those pairs wereeliminated from the study. The questionnaires were then rearranged by lab partners.Commonalities and differences between partners were first identified. In particular, the degreesof active vs. reflective, sensing vs. intuitive, visual vs. verbal and sequential vs. global learninghad to be reviewed. Each partnership was then described based on the learning styles presentand the degree to which these learning styles were found.ResultsThis study is in it’s infancy with follow on studies planned to increase the
equally difficult, or equallyvaluable. Some require significant understanding and reflection; others are straightforwardsimple tasks. By providing an indication to the students as to which milestones are which,the students have more information with which to plan their work.For instance, a ±10% error margin may be acceptable in the project specification, but a ±1%is preferable. If the accuracy milestones are rated for difficulty, students who find themselveswithin the 10% margin can then decide whether they wish to invest the time and effort toachieve the smaller tolerance, and thus the additional mark, or whether to focus their energieselsewhere.Four difficulty categories were chosen for the milestones: Easy, Standard, Hard andChallenging. The
direct or reflected beam viewing. Class IV lasers are also a fire risk as they may also ignite combustible materials.3. Components of the ePIV systemIn this section, the ePIV hardware will be discussed followed by the software. Typical operationprocedure will also be explained.3.1. ePIV hardware – Interactive ExperimentThe Interactive Experiment hardware can be seen in Figure 2. Figure 2. The ePIV systemThe interactive experiment system is portable and it consists of a rugged module, housing all thesystem components. The components include a PCB mounted digital camera, a laser, an opticallens for the laser light, a small variable speed water pump, a reservoir, and aninterchangeable experiment module. All the
0.00 4.79 critical thinking Treats all students in a consistent R12 92.86 7.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.93 manner R13 Exams reflect the material covered 85.71 14.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.86 Willingly assists students outside of R14 78.57 21.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.79 class R15 I found this class to be challenging 64.29 28.57 0.00 0.00 7.14 0.00 4.43 Item
the level signals sent to the controller and displayed onthe front panel (see Figure 6) reflect the actual levels (in inches) in the tanks. The flow ratequantity generated by the controller was converted into a voltage signal that allows the pump toproduce the desired flow. The coefficients of the digital controller are entered into an AUTOCONTROL module (see the block diagram in Figure 7) in a LabVIEW virtual instrumentprovided by the instructor. Level Sensors Laptop with the LabVIEW Controller Control
, but without the option (as in the traditional courses) ofchanging the mechanical design to simplify the software control. Performance evaluation couldnow include consideration of differences between the simulated robot and the physical robot in areal environment. Because each student had a local copy of the simulator, initial developmentand testing could take place off-line; when ready, the student could then test the same controlleron the physical robot. In principle, the simulator would be an accurate reflection of the real-world environment. Discrepancies could lead students to develop more robust controlalgorithms, and/or feed back to the instructors in order to improve the simulator itself. Studentscould work completely according to
clear, measurable, learning objectives ‚ Specify clear, reliable, and objective assessment criteria of students workEvaluation of the Lab Experience in the CurriculumAppendix C contains a survey that was used to evaluate student’s lab experience in theengineering programs in King Abdulaziz University. The form evaluates the lab experience in 3distinct areas: ‚ Students and Learning ‚ Instructors and Instruction ‚ Facilities and SafetyThe results of the survey, when first used, indicated the weak as well as the strong points of theundergraduate lab experience of KAU students as shown in Fig 1. The results reflect the weakpoints of the classical recipe type experiments where the students are unable to deal with
Problem-solving • Analytical SkillsThis indicates a high level of interest and effort in the class throughout the semester.Besides igniting interest in robotics for the students in the class, we had an unintended effect ofexciting a class of about 24 preschool children who came to participate in a final testing stage.During the official DARPA Urban Challenge on Saturday, November 3rd, 2007, the students heldtheir own mini Urban Challenge in the lobby of the student dorm. Although it was interesting foronlookers, results were not as hoped due to the early date. In one case, the robot traversed theentire route, but didn’t detect another vehicle at an intersection. The obstacle didn’t reflect theultrasound back to the robot’s sensor. In another
4and 5 also show the laser-based illumination setup used for the current testing. A 500mW solidstate laser was mounted vertically on an adjustable support platform. The platform providedlateral displacement adjustment and tilt adjustment degrees of freedom for aligning the lightsheet with the plane of the smoke streams. A simple cylindrical lens optic produced the desiredsheet of light for illumination of a section of the test section. The top of the test section, as wellas the side-walls, are of Plexiglas for optical access. Not all of the flow field could be viewed atthe same time with the current optical setup due to the spreading of the laser light sheet. Forsafety reasons, precautions were taken to minimize stray laser reflections. Test
P Ptechnical sessions of the 2005 NCSLI Annual Workshop and Symposium, participants weregiven sticky dots to mark on kiosk displays the areas that they believed to be of highest priority.In addition, a survey form was distributed to gather feedback on suggested action steps thatNCSLI might take. The overwhelming feedback on the kiosks, surveys, and individualdiscussions related to Metrology Outreach. The objectives and framework of the roadmap wereslightly modified in 2007 to reflect the intervening time and are noted below. Page 13.922.2Objectives:1. Metrology & Standards Outreach. Ensure awareness of metrology, measurement sciences
obtaining the practical range of parameters that are both suitable for a laboratory environment and are preferably available stock items 5. To provide a means to collect and interpret data recorded through experimentation. 6. To share the schematics and parts required to fabricate additional units via a website accessible through Vjg"Eqnngig"qh"Pgy"Lgtug{Óu"website. 7. To develop appropriate instruction for experimentation to optimize the function of the apparatus.III - BACKGROUNDA comprehensive review of literature (1-6) was conducted on Single Degree of Freedom (S-D-F)Vibrations as well as the existing pertinent laboratory apparatuses. Appendix (B) reflects on acollection of the relevant equations for the study of S-D-F
zoom functions built in. In order to accommodate different studentpreferences, these functions can be controlled by either moving the mouse in the 3-D space, bykey combinations using the “←”, “→”, “↑”, “↓”, “Page Up” and “Page Down” keys, or by gamekeys “A”, “D”, “W”, “S”, “E” and “R”. During the experimentation, any changes in parametersand variables are immediately reflected numerically and graphically as a response to the students’inputs. For example, by selecting a different airfoil type from the “Model Selection” list, allcorresponding outputs are refreshed automatically. This design is expected to create a strong feelof immersion in the represented space for the students. Figure 14: GUI of virtual airfoil and wing
the success or failure oftheir engineering design projects. This failure to fully understand physical principles wasattributed to a tendency by some students to over-simplify or fail to completely grasp thefull extent of the problems presented. When this happened, students invariablydeveloped perceptions that the engineering design process was, at best, unnecessary and,at worst, a hindrance to effective problem solving.The following comments, excerpted from course-end reflective student essays illustratethis particular area of concern:“The modeling and analysis was so nebulous a concept that I grew to hate it.”“During this project, we were required to apply principles and concepts without fullyunderstanding them.”“I only began to learn about
opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed inthis material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NationalScience Foundation. The authors are grateful for the assistance of Ms. Jenna Faulkner in editing the laboratoryworksheets, and the assistance of Dr. Jack Kirshenbaum in interpreting the survey data. Theauthors are also very appreciative of the cooperation and support of Dr. Hamid Moradkhani andMs. Sheryle Quinn as we conducted our educational research in their class. Page 13.710.17Bibliography1. Butterfield, R., Benefit without cost in a mechanics laboratory. Journal of Engineering