engineeringdynamics class8; Holdhusen talked about a flipped statics course9; Lee et al., flipped a mechanicsof materials course10; etc., while others have partially flipped one11-16. Most of these flippedclassroom models were related to student-centered learning theories, such as, active learning,peer-assisted learning, cooperative learning, collaborative learning, problem-based learning, peertutoring, etc.17-22. However, in general, most of them have not followed any specific theoreticalframework. This paper describes a flipped Solid Mechanics course that has been designed andtaught during the Spring 2015 semester at Arizona State University, following the Interactive,Constructive, Active, and Passive (ICAP) framework by Chi et al.23.According to Chi et al
students are expected to publish peer-reviewed journal papersas well as assist PIs with proposal writing.2- Oral Communication – TANMS students are encourage to freely articulate themselves andtheir ideas and thoughts during meetings with PIs and mentors. Additionally, students areexpected to deliver an oral technical presentations and posters.Core II - Engineering Success1- Innovation – Ability to execute new ideas in research, education, and industry with relevance(or relevancy) to multiferroics.2- Creativity – Ability to synthesize new ideas on multiferroics. For example, students are able tosuggest applications of multiferroics based on their research.Core III – Business and Marketplace Savvy1- Entrepreneur - Entrepreneurial mindset is
illustrate how students write up a solution to this problem. Each sectionrepresents a module in Figure 1.2.1 Position and Orientation ^ XAThe first step in Figure 1, is to develop ^ Νa description of position and orienta- Y B xtion for all rigid bodies in the system. ^Students develop this description using X B z ^ YA
associated with a Gantt chart and work breakdown structure. Theymust also develop an instructional lab with a series of questions that helps reinforce the theorytaught in the classroom. And finally, they are required to teach this lab to their peers. The designpremise/requirement for the capstone students is that they must incorporate at least three coreareas of the curriculum into their team project. This will provide future implementation of the labto different areas of study with the engineering technology programs. The areas of study for thislab apparatus in this paper include measurements and instrumentations with LabView, strengthof materials, heat transfer and material behavior. The assessment included in the final paper istwofold. The
2015-2016. Week Intro Engr Proj Engr Proj 1 Engr Proj 2 1 CDS Overview Introduction Syllabus 2 Syllabus, Safety Proj 1 Lecture - 3 Fabrication Lab Safety - - 4 - - - 5 Rubrics, Logbooks, Proposal Team Presentations - 6 - - - 7 - - - 8 - Peer Evaluations - 9 Peer
in-class resources, and courses with peer collaboration elements are eachrespectively beneficial to undergraduate engineering students. However, these pedagogicalpractices are most commonly implemented in first- and final-year courses. Moreover, theprocesses of implementing these new practices, and of transferring reforms between institutions,merit further study. The existent body of literature regarding the facilitation of research-basedpedagogical change has been described as “weak”1, and researchers have frequently called forfurther study of STEM instructional reform and implementation fidelity1–3. As part of thisbroader effort, few have sought to study the lived experience of the specific faculty memberswho adopt and adapt to these new
experience with ABET accreditation. Healso has lead the preparation of self-study reports for the various engineering programs in thecollege in the past. The committee members include both full time tenured/tenure track and non-tenure track faculty, including the department chair. All members contribute to the committeefunctions and several are involved in writing various sections of self-study report. Thecommittee meets as needed and more often in the summer to prepare for the fall semester. It isestimated that 8 meetings in the summer, 12 meetings in the spring/fall semester. A total of 20meetings of 2 hours each, involving 8 faculty occur per year, representing a 320 person hoursefforts devoted to meetings and at least double this effort for
Engineering programs. A review of the top ten Mechanical Engineeringundergraduate programs, according to U.S. New and World Report, indicates that only oneschool offered an integrated Thermal-Fluids sequence.4 That school offered the traditionalThermodynamics and Fluid Mechanics courses as well thus not fully switching the curriculum toan integrated method. The authors also examined the curriculum of the two peer serviceacademies’ ME programs and found that only the U.S. Naval Academy offered an integratedThermal-Fluids sequence, while retaining the traditional Thermodynamics and Fluid Mechanicscourses in their offerings. The limited availability of integrated thermal-fluids textbooks,compared to the wide availability of Thermodynamics and Fluid
thermodynamics instructions by someresearchers. This method trains students to tackle ill-defined, ill-structured problems as found inthe real world.4 Studies have shown that this learning method results in more positive students’attitudes, a deeper conceptual understanding and improved retention of knowledge.12 Thesuccess of problem-based learning depends to some extent on students’ self-efficacy and thedegree of collaboration among peers. In problem-based environments, learners practice higherorder cognitive skills (analysis, synthesis and evaluation), and constantly engage in reflectivethinking.34 Lape35 presented tiered scaffolding techniques to bridge the gaps in high-cognitive-load problem-based learning in thermodynamics. In a problem-based
notnecessarily the same cohort as the lecture sections so some students might have had Instructor Afor lecture and Instructor B for laboratory. The topics and the order in which they are covered arein the syllabus in appendix A.Winter 2011 – Traditional LectureIn the MC/MSD course taught by instructor B during winter quarter 2011, the course topics andlab structure were very similar to those in the spring 2015 course. However, what happened inlecture was very different. Most of each lecture period was spent in the traditional lecture mode,with the instructor presenting new material on the chalkboard and students taking notes. Eachclass period began by writing two to three key learning objectives for the day. Examples wereworked in class by the
model with pressuretaps and other accessories that may be manufactured. Manufacturing an orifice plate and itsparaphernalia is not part of this course in FEM.They are required to report their results as an “extended abstract” as per ASME conferenceguidelines. Most students have not experience writing scientific articles at this juncture in theircareer and the organized nature and conciseness of the “ASME extend abstract” format is a goodfoil for them to practice their scientific communication skills. To recount, the multi-fold nature ofthe project is as follows: • Use of Hypermesh to preprocess/set-up the problem, its boundary conditions, loading conditions, solution and post-processing of results. • Solution (with the use of