25.918.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2012 MATLAB1 Demonstration of Transmission Line Phenomena in ElectromagneticsThe university involved in this paper has a two semester sequence of electromagnetics. Coveragebegins with the study of transmission lines, which constitute a very important application ofelectromagnetics. Signal reflection and impedance matching are critical concepts in wirelesscommunications and radar. However, while students often can properly apply formulas to solvetransmission line problems, they often lack a deep understanding of how these lines work.MATLAB can serve as a useful tool for illuminating the operation of transmission lines
relevant to their interests.13 Each of these successes enhances learners’perceptions of self-competence, content self-efficacy, and motivation to learn more.Educational research has expanded the concept of scaffolding to encompass “surface” and“deep” learning as part of instructional design and development.14, 15 A consistent finding amongthe research studies is that higher quantity and quality of learning outcomes are related to thepresence of deeper supports for learning and instruction.16 When the instructional methodincludes self-directed learning, group discussion and reflection to promote and/or challenge idea,students were more likely to adopt a deep approach to learning, to take responsibility fordetermining their learning goals, and to
lesson for Information Security, a case whichdescribed an online bookstore with clients complaining about stolen account andunauthorized transactions were given, and students were asked to investigate into the possiblecauses, and proposed corresponding solutions.Coaching during an inquiryAfter the problem and the expected deliverables are clearly explained, the inquiry process canthen begin. In the lessons, learners conduct inquiry collaboratively in groups, they fullyanalyze and comprehend the problem, plan how to investigate, and summarize and reflect onthe results. Scaffolding aid is critical in this step and is provided in terms of short lecture,reference web sites, hands-on experiments, and guided activities. These scaffoldings wereprovided
andoperationalizing critical thinking by defining eight elements of thought which capture howcritical thinking examines, analyzes, and reflects on intellectual work. These eight elements leadto eight categories of questions present, to some degree, in all critical thinking: (1) what is thepurpose? (2) what is the point of view? (3) what are the assumptions? (4) what are theimplications? (5) what information is needed? (6) what inferences are being made? (7) what isthe most fundamental concept?, and (8) what is the question that is being answered? Theintellectual standards describe the criteria used to evaluate the quality of the critical thinking. Forexample: the thinking has a clear purpose or makes relevant assumptions. The intellectual traitsare the
by Eyler and Giles is provided followed by adescription of the program developed to link senior capstone design projects with the needs ofthe assistive technology community. A review of recently completed projects is then provided.The paper concludes with a discussion of benefits to all participants: the AT community, seniordesign students and engineering programs.BackgroundService learning as defined by the National Service-Learning Clearing House “is a teaching andlearning strategy that integrates meaningful community service with instruction and reflection toenrich the learning experience, teach civic responsibility, and strengthen communities.”1 Whileservice learning programs may be quite diverse and employ students from a wide variety
attitudes companies were seeking in the emerging classes of engineers. Having been inthis process, one was more likely to have reflected on any noticeable performance gaps and tohave thought more deeply about what direction engineering education should take. As for university respondents, it was assumed that any faculty member who had beenrequired to teach courses (presumably all faculty members) would have been involved incurriculum development and therefore would have had experience in this area. Therefore, facultymember participation was limited only by years of experience and level of involvement inteaching electrical engineering courses. In addition, to provide a ―big picture‖ perspective, onefaculty respondent was chosen who had also
involves awareness andunderstanding of barriers as well as knowledge of potential benefits. For the Mobile Studioproject, this entailed challenges that are inherent to implementation of any new instructionalapproach (e.g., instructor experience, administrative support, and assistance in acquiring neededresources) as well as specific challenges reflective of the philosophy underlying a mobile studiopedagogy (e.g., the need for accessibility and mobility of the device and support for aconstructivist approach to learning). Information pertaining to these areas is presented below.3.a. Prior Experience Instructor and students’ lack of experience with constructivist philosophies of educationand use of Mobile Studio devices were found to impede or
waste of time. 35% Figure 6. Course Reflection, Fall 2011.Motivational Challenges"Electrical Engineering?" "Electronic Systems?" "We have to take an engineering course? But,I'm an English major." "Why should I care about engineering?" These are common reactionsfrom students on Lesson 1 of this 40-lesson course. Indeed, these are valid questions. So duringLesson 1, each instructor is challenged to convince these students that this course is relevant.Then, during every succeeding lesson, they continue to motivate the students to learn and to beinterested, not just regurgitate information. Unless a student is motivated to learn the material,the information presented is unlikely to be committed to
work by all students and for the convenience of rearrangingclassroom desks into tidy squares for group work. Both classes were given instruction, during afull class period at the beginning of the semester (with regular reminders throughout thesemester), on what was expected of them during group work. Those expectations included: 1-following a simple problem-solving scheme, which included brief individual reflection, briefgroup brainstorming to decide a solution approach, and then interactive work with discussion Page 25.1241.4until the problem is solved; and 2- using good interpersonal team skills, which includedspeaking, listening, and peer
breadboard power is supplied from the Olimex board, which inturn is powered by the J-Link adapter.Course MaterialsA common problem in all engineering courses is providing instructional materials that reflect thecurrent state-of-the-art. A variety of textbooks are available that present the Freescale 9S12, Intel8051, or Microchip PIC microcontrollers. While not written as textbooks, there are also quite afew introductory and tutorial books for the Arduino platform. However, to our knowledge thereare no textbooks for university courses that use the Cortex-M architecture as a modelmicrocontroller. For the first offering of the updated microcontroller course we required studentsto purchase Yiu’s book on the Cortex-M3, which was written as a general
material todifferentiate between the three distributions. These problems were carefully selected to focus oncommon issues and misconceptions that students usually encounter.Figure 2. Workout ModeShop (figure 3) and Contest (figure 4) modes provide the students with an amusing experience,giving them the opportunity to shop for various items that empower them against a computeropponent. Each item in the shop unlocks at a certain point value (table 1). Users will be able toobtain stronger items as they gain more points through the Workout mode. In this segment, thenumber of problems solved correlates directly with the amount of credits available to the player.Therefore, the correct answers ultimately result in greater strength that is reflected in
hour laboratory session. A total of 300 students in 9 different laboratory sectionsfrom two different classes participated in this laboratory activity. Students worked in groups oftwo. The laboratory staff included 3 TAs. Generally, the laboratory was well received by boththe students and the TAs, although there were some challenges that should be addressed in futureimplementations of this laboratory. Most common mistakes observed by the TAs included: 1. Running ground connections from the transmitting board to receiving board. This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of a ‘wireless’ circuit; 2. Improper and/or inaccurate use of the external modulation function of the function generation; 3. Breaking the
variable is coloredwith the “current” value of that state variable, while the “.d” is colored to reflect its “next” value– the value it will be assigned when a clock TICK occurs. The prototype software supports onlyD-type flipflops, but other types would be easy to add. A single TICK button provides the clockto all registered variables. The updating of registered values because of a TICK is followed bythose new values propagating throughout the set of equations. The behavior of sequentialcircuits can be viewed by repeatedly clicking the TICK button. Thus, a better or fasterunderstanding of such circuits can be achieved by inspecting the changes that occur and that areabout to occur after each successive TICK. In addition to a list of input
theavailable funding allowed the two sophomore students to be paid for only ten hours per weekduring the summer months. It is gratifying to see that the summer research experience had apositive impact on the students’ plans for graduate school as reflected in the response to thefourth statement.Summary and ConclusionsSeveral important lessons learned for enabling successful undergraduate student research inFPGAs are now summarized. First, while rather obvious, it is worth stating again, the importanceof finding the right quality of student. Students who are motivated and especially those who arepondering graduate school are key.8,18 All five of the students represented in this paper areconsidering graduate school or have already applied. (One of them
and between 1 and 6output devices/actuators. Of particular interest in Table 7 is the number of different types ofsensors and actuators used across all of the teams in this junior-level course. Since the courseincluded frequent opportunities for teams to share what they had learned and receive peer Page 25.1051.11feedback along the way through presentations and progress demonstrations, they were able tolearn vicariously from other projects. In addition, some teams had members with particularinterests or specialties that were reflected in the “above and beyond” features of their designs.For example, the Smart Bowler team had