at Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA, in 2005. She is currently an Associate Professor in the Electronics Systems Engi- neering Technology program at Texas A&M University, in College Station, TX. Her research interests include protocols for real-time voice and video communications and their performance, IP-based emer- gency communications, last-mile communication links for the SmartGrid, rural telecommunications, and behavior-driven development. Page 24.1322.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2014Using Behavioral Driven Development (BDD) in a Capstone Design Project
Award Committee for the Engineering Economy Division of ASEE. He has been active in leading capstone projects, capstone courses and industry-community relations for eight years. Page 24.1178.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2014 Technical Design Reviews in Engineering CapstoneAbstractTechnical design reviews are used throughout industry to assess, question, improve and approvedesign. The review process is a frank exploration of the design efficacy. This paper reports onthe use of the industrial style technical design review or its equivalent in the
engineering materials, and directs the senior capstone design course effort. Page 24.96.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2014 A Real World Design Project in a One Semester Civil Engineering Capstone Design CourseAbstractAll engineering programs have a senior capstone project requirement with the intent that thestudents demonstrate that they are prepared to work as a staff design engineer upon graduation.Hundreds of papers have been published on engineering capstone projects, dozens specificallyon civil engineering capstone projects, and very few on
building prototypes to solve real-worldproblems sponsored by industry and research faculty. Industrial Engineers (IE), by the nature oftheir discipline, often work on problems that do not involve a physical object. Instead, thedeliverables may be simulations, facility layouts, procedural modifications, databases, or otherprocesses or products less tangible than a physical prototype. Previous work by one of theauthors presented a validated scheme for assessing Mechanical Engineering (ME) solutionsbased on examination of the Executive Summary document written three weeks before the end ofthe Capstone course. For the present work, this same evaluation scheme was applied to theIndustrial Engineering projects presented during the past seven years. The
CapstoneDesign course where teams work on company-sponsored projects. Teams include bothengineering and non-engineering students and projects include product, process, and systemdesign opportunities. This active learning opportunity allows students to apply their academic,professional, and practical skills to real-world problem solving. This two-semester programbegins with a seven-week pre-capstone course. During this time the capstone coordinators formteams based on student preference and disciplines appropriate to the project scope. Thecoordinators assign a faculty advisor and identify an industry liaison to provide leadership andcoaching throughout the project.The program enhances critical thinking skills by providing open-ended projects. By
incorporating communities in the design process. Teaching students to designwith communities and not for communities is dependent upon the context of the design process.This paper addresses the pedagogy of social engineering in the capstone design projects rooted inthe framing of the design process for collaborative creativity.The programs that enact multidisciplinary curriculums are exemplar in satisfying the ABET a-kguidelines. Institutions of higher education that additionally use multi-year projects and employdesign progression though the undergraduate curriculum have more success in generatingprojects that have lasting effects on the communities. Due to the long-term commitment of thestudents to a specific project or community, there is greater
fromproduct design, business, and marketing in a way that more closely represents the process as itoccurs in practice.4-7 In addition, it may provide design educators with an assessment tool forstudent learning as it provides an opportunity to compare initial, mid, and final versions of the ICduring the course of a capstone design project. The IC may also help design teams focusattention on critical issues that can determine the success of a new design and to recognize theinterconnection and overlap between the various technical and non-technical issues related tosuccessful product development. Another potential strength of the IC for use in a capstone designcourse is the “at-a-glance” view of the critical components that must be considered
Paper ID #10569The Professional Guide: A Resource for Preparing Capstone Design Studentsto Function Effectively on Industry-sponsored Project TeamsDr. R. Keith Stanfill, University of Florida B.S., M.E., and Ph.D. degree in mechanical engineering University of Florida Dr. R. Keith Stanfill is the Director of the Integrated Product and Process Design Program and an Engineer for the Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering. His interests include technology transfer, entrepreneurship, product development, design education and Design for X. Dr. Stanfill has over ten years’ industrial experience with United
produce a total of15 fully functioning products. This was a good approach to the course when the students were amix of MET and applied technology students. When the ME degree was added to the program in2010, the course shifted more to a research and development focus than production. It requiresone single functioning prototype instead of 15, and has ME and MET students working togethersince a separate capstone course was created for the applied technology students. This hasdefinitely increased the complexity of the projects and made it easier to reach out to assist localindustry. In order to successfully complete these projects, students must spend a lot of time onresearch and design before they begin building their working prototype. This was
77 cards, with each heuristic represented on a single card with examples.For this study, Design Heuristics were incorporated into a year-long mechanical engineering Page 24.544.2capstone design course, and students had open access to the 77 Cards representing DesignHeuristics for the entire year of their projects. Formal training was implemented in the capstonedesign course as a strategy to introduce concept generation and the 77 Design Heuristic cards.Our work explores the use of the 77 Design Heuristic cards by the capstone design teams,including their reactions to these strategies and how they, and their advisors, believed thesestrategies
Paper ID #9982Student Perceptions of Project Mentoring: What Practices and BehaviorsMatter?Dr. Marie C Paretti, Virginia Tech Marie C. Paretti is an Associate Professor of Engineering Education at Virginia Tech, where she co- directs the Virginia Tech Engineering Communications Center (VTECC). Her research focuses on com- munication in engineering design, interdisciplinary communication and collaboration, design education, and gender in engineering. She was awarded a CAREER grant from the National Science Foundation to study expert teaching in capstone design courses, and is co-PI on numerous NSF grants exploring com
of mobile computing. He holds three degrees in computer en- gineering including a B.S. from North Carolina State University and an M.S. and Ph.D. from Virginia Tech. Page 24.148.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2014 Aligning Design to ABET: Rubrics, Portfolios, and Project ManagersAbstractThis paper discusses on-going modifications to a two-semester capstone design sequence inelectrical and computer engineering intended to both improve student learning in design andbetter utilize the artifacts produced by the course to
Marymount University Dr. Matthew T. Siniawski is an Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, CA. He teaches the senior capstone design project courses and has recently begun mentoring students on the design of assistive devices for children with disabilities. One of his research interests lies in understanding how these Learning Through Service projects impact participating engineering students and community partners. He is also interested in researching classroom-based peda- gogies of engagement and developing a standards-based grading system for engineering project courses.Dr. Adam R Carberry, Arizona State University Adam R. Carberry, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor
,graduates, and faculty are presented. This paper also provides direction to the faculty for whichtypes of projects should be pursued for optimal educational benefit and to pinpoint areas thatmight need improvement in project design and implementation.1. IntroductionEngineering design courses provide valuable design experience for engineering students. Thecapstone design courses has gained considerable attention ever since it was found that the studentoutcomes set forth by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) areachievable in this course1 . Although capstone design courses are commonly taught at mostengineering schools, how they are taught and what they include varies widely2. Manysuggestions have been made to improve the
common to all students and the following two years are specific to disciplines. Through the course of their education, students take part in several interdisciplinary design projects, including three major design projects offered in first and second years and capstone projects in fourth year. In the capstone course, students work on industry motivated real-life projects. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of these project-based learning activities, and to better understand how students evolve through the completion of these projects, a survey was conducted among first year, sophomore and senior students. The survey asked students for their views on the structure of these design courses
, business and design. Multi- Sections are Two semester Sections are Projects designed semester described as capstone projects. described as to be one “teams” and span Required for some “companies”. semester, though multiple majors. Projects can span projects can carry semesters. semesters or on longer. All Projects can span years. Can undergraduate semesters. participate students at the Students can
categorized in three groups as follows:Design Prerequisite • R4.2.1.1: “It is addressed in other courses but is often considered in the design course” • R4.2.1.2: “There is no a lot of room in the didactic part of our design courses to include topics. My feeling is that uncertainty is best introduced in courses that come before the capstone design course and then students use it, if needed, in their design project.” • R4.2.1.3: “Students should have already been exposed to it as part of a sequence of courses on measurements - probably a better fit than in my machine elements course.” • R4.2.1.4: “We have 3 courses in design. One of them incorporates Probability and Statistics. One I teach does not
more educators are becoming aware of the issues of design, and steps arebeing taken world wide to address the concerns of industry at large. One approach has been toform “symbiotic” partnership between industry and academia through senior capstone projects. Page 24.948.2The capstone course has evolved over the years from “made up” projects devised by faculty toindustry-sponsored projects where companies provide “real” problems, along with expertise andfinancial support. In fact, design courses, in general, have emerged as a means for students to beexposed to some flavor of what engineers actually do; and also, could learn the basic elements
– concept generation through volume production in less than three hours1. AbstractDesign for manufacturability (DFM) is the practice of engineering products such that they aremore easily produced in volume. DFM is traditionally taught by lecture and students aresubsequently encouraged to utilize the underlying concepts in their engineering design coursesand capstone project. One of the problems with this approach is that the design is rarely taken tovolume production, giving students little chance to see firsthand the benefits of employing DFMin their work. To address this, we have developed an in-class activity which allows studentteams to design a widget and take it to volume production all within the span of a single three-hour
undergraduate engineering and threeinstructors who teach engineering design capstone project were invited in the face and contentvalidity process. While the students focused their attention on the improvement of wording, theinstructors focused their evaluation beyond the wording issues such as whether each of thosesurvey items was relevant in their capstone design project. Interview sessions were laterconducted for further inquiries and clarifications of their comments about the survey. Revisionswere made based on their feedback and the revised questionnaire was returned back to the samestudents and instructors for their final comments. Final revision was then made based on theirfinal comments.The resulting survey instrument contains 127 questionnaire
predominantly reflect thecenturies old traditional engineering science model. In this model the fundamental conceptsof mathematics and science are viewed as content that is prerequisite to practice anddelivered to students as abstracted cognitive instruction through a sequence of lectures,tutorials and examinations. Despite a strong demand by engineering stakeholders forincreased emphasis on engineering ability and professional competencies, there is littleopportunity within this model for these to be addressed within the types of authentic contextsthat are required if learning is to be situated as practice3. While Capstone project-baseddesign courses have found their place as culturally acceptable vehicles for many of theengineering ability and
key functions of complex systems. To date, however,few efforts have been devoted to apply the IDEF0 method to model a design course as a complexsystem. Next, we explain our interpretation of a (good) “design thinking” course with respect tothe four IDEF0 building blocks: input, output, mechanism, and control. The conceptual model isillustrated in Figure 1.Input of a “design thinking” course includes both design methods and design projects. Theformer specifies a particular process (or pattern) of performing design, which the instructor cansystemically teach step-by step. Whereas the latter allows the students to practice the newmethods that they learnt by solving real-world design problems. In some sense, a certain designmethod can be
. However, resources are limited for assessing students’ abilitiesto consider design from a broad perspective and to account for a design’s impact on itsstakeholders. The purpose of this paper is to introduce a rubric to assess how students perceiveand integrate stakeholders into the design of a complex system. Following a description of therubric and its development, this paper describes results from the initial application and evaluationof the rubric by a panel of faculty, graduate students, and research scientists, as they used therubric to assess aircraft design projects. This initial evaluation demonstrated the strengths of therubric (particularly with regards to validity) and how the reliability of the ratings among raterswas sensitive to the
industry, consists of all the necessary steps tobring a new or redesigned product to the market. Although the process is practiced in manydifferent ways, depending on, for instance, company size and customer requirements, there aremany common elements. These need to be covered by University teaching to prepare studentsfor jobs in industry. This paper considers how students can be supported to make open, creativeand well informed decisions in several stages of the product development process.A teaching approach suitable for the product development process is described and investigated.The pedagogic context of the approach is project based learning in small student groups withshort regular meetings with an instructor for consultation and supervision
consistentwith the highly contextualized nature of professional engineering expertise [8]. Each of theseapplication activities provides students with opportunities to apply different component skillsfrom their engineering education, in different contexts and to different types ofproblems/situations [9]. Design courses in general and the capstone in particular serve as platforms to facilitate thisintegrative application of basic science and engineering principles on ill structured problems thatrequire students to first apply divergent thinking and then converge to one solution [10]. Eventhough project based design courses are introduced in the curriculum to provide engineeringstudents with “real world” and “hands-on” design experiences to facilitate
that first year students did not have the capacity to comprehend engineering design beforecompleting the fundamental coursework of engineering. Now, as the engineering curriculum hasprogressed, first year design courses, known as the cornerstone engineering courses, have become staplecourses across engineering programs in the United States [1]. Similarly, fourth year design courses,referred to as capstone courses, have seen significant development over time through integration ofindustry-sponsored projects with real world applications into the coursework. However, these capstonecourses serve as the only standard opportunity across engineering education for undergraduateengineering students to showcase their engineering education. In
, Boca Raton, FL 33431 E-mails: ravivd@fau.edu and aradzins@fau.eduAbstract This paper describes an undergraduate-level problem-based design project that relates toeasing a real annoying experience for most drivers: the speed bump. It focuses on an engaging,mentoring-based learning process from inception to prototyping, while bearing in mind aspectsof commercialization. The process starts with observation – an essential first step in problem solving – of whatwe take for granted, in this case, the solid, static, annoying speed bump. The next step isdiscussing and thinking critically, identifying pros and cons of existing solutions. It is followedby a more broad definition of the problem as a “vehicular speed
, Fairfax, VA, USA. He studies the use of informa- tion and communication technologies (ICT) for engineering learning and knowledge sharing, with a focus on cognition in informal environments. He is a co-editor of the Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Ed- ucation Research (CHEER), Cambridge University Press (2014). He can be reached at ajohri3@gmu.edu. More information about him is available at: http://mason.gmu.edu/˜ajohri3Prof. akshay sharma, Virginia Tech, Industrial Design Akshay Sharma, an Associate Professor, is passionate about creating thin interfaces in analogue as well as digital media and about using design as a catalyst for the empowerment of women. Currently he is working on projects related to: micro
that student views onstakeholders during design varied significantly; from a complete lack of appreciation forstakeholders during design to the development of significant relationships with stakeholders asdesign collaborators14.As an increasingly appreciated methodology in engineering design, the use of designethnography and the ways in which students learn to practice design ethnography requirethorough study. An understanding of these techniques can help improve their application duringdesign and support the development of relevant and effective design pedagogy. The researchdescribed in this paper contributes to addressing these gaps in knowledge by studying howengineering students apply design ethnography techniques in their capstone design
Greenwood Press: Westport Connenicut. p. 115 - 133.32. Johnson, D., R. Johnson, and K. Smith, Cooperative Learning Returns to College: What evidence is there that it works? Change, 1998. 30(4): p. 26-35.33. Nembhard, D., K. Yip, and A. Shtub, Comparing competitive and cooperative strategies for learning project management. Journal of Engineering Education, 2009. 98(2): p. 181-192.34. Keyser, M.W., Active learning and cooperative learning: understanding the difference and using both styles effectively. Research Strategies, 2000. 17(1): p. 35-44.35. Pimmel, R., Cooperative learning instructional activities in a capstone design course. Journal of Engineering Education, 2001. 90(3): p. 413-421.36. Finelli, C.J., A