Implementation of a Mechatronics Learning Module in a Large First-Semester Engineering Course. IEEE Transactions On Education, 53 (3), 445-454.7. Durfee, W. K. (2003). Mechatronics for the masses: a hands-on project for a large, introductory design class. International Journal of Engineering Education, 19 (4), 593-596.8. McLurkin, J., Rykowski, J., John, M., Kaseman, Q., & Lynch, A. J. (2013). Using multi-robot systems for engineering education: Teaching and outreach with large numbers of an advanced, low-cost robot. Education, IEEE Transactions on, 56 (1), 24-33.9. Nedic, Z., Nafalski, A., & Machotka, J. (2010). Motivational project-based laboratory for a common first year electrical
Achievement Motivation, J. T. Spence, Ed. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.[16] Q. Jin, S. Purzer, and P. K. Imbrie, “Measuring first-year engineering students’ knowledge and interest in materials science and engineering,” Proc. Am. Soc. Eng. Educ. Ann. Conf., San Antonio, TX, 2012.[17] H. M. Matusovich, R. A. Streveler, R. L. Miller, and B. A. Olds, “I’m graduating this year! So what IS an engineering anyway?” Proc. Am. Soc. Eng. Educ. Ann. Conf., Austin, TX, 2009a.[18] H. M. Matusovich, R. A. Streveler, R. L. Miller, and B. A. Olds, “Competence in engineering: A tale of two women,” Proc. Am. Soc. Eng. Educ. Ann. Conf., Austin, TX, 2009b.[19] S. Brunhaver, C. Carrico, H. Matusovich, R. Streveler, P. Boylan-Ashraf, and S. Sheppard
= × 𝐴 × ∆𝑇 (1) 𝑑𝑡 𝑅 𝑑𝑄 The thermal power ( ) , due to amount of heat (Q) passing through the target in a time 𝑑𝑡unit, is dissipated from the target surface by means of convection, conduction, and radiation.According to Albatici et al.(2008), the contribution of conduction is not as important a factor asconvection and radiation 8. Fokaides et al. (2011), Ham et al. (2013), hypothesized that the mainheat transfer from the target to the sensor of the thermal camera is due to thermal radiation andthermal convection as given in equations (2) and (3) 4,8 . The calculation of the R-value in
/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.664Lin, Q. (2008). Preservice teachers' learning experiences of constructing e-portfolios online. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3), 194-200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.07.002Lorenzo, G., & Ittelson, J. (2005). An overview of e-portfolios. Educause Learning Initiative. Educause Learning Initiative, 1(27). Retrieved from https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3001.pdfMacias, J. A. (2012). Enhancing project-based learning in software engineering lab teaching through an e- portfolio approach. IEEE Transactions on Education, 55(4), 502-507. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TE.2012.2191787McCready, T. (2007). Portfolios and the assessment of competence in nursing: A
thebeginning of the year, the engineering students took the Kolb learning style quick assessment.Retrieved from https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=kolb+quick+assessment. This quickassessment consists of twenty questions that determine the learning style or preference of astudent as described in table 1. Engineering students with project teams consisted mostly ofstudent learning styles that are converging and assimilating. However, each team also had one ortwo students with learning styles of diverging and accommodating. Therefore, each teamconsisted of individual learning preferences that tend to complement one another. Also, in orderto have successful capstone projects, faculty rearranges and balances out the makeup of theteams in terms of academic
38% 2 35% Fig. 7. Survey Response – Question # 14 (I feel that undergraduate research is preparing me for more demanding research in the future).A summary of the results from all fifteen questions is provided in Table 1. It may be noted thatthe weighted average for each question is listed in the last column of this table. Table 1. Survey Responses – Summary. Survey Response (No. of students) Weighted Q 1 2 3 4 5 Response 1 6
errorsand debug the software logic mistakes. Most of all they will benefit from this hand-on experienceby involving in the entire process of construction from the beginning to the end in the field ofrobotics and automation [5].A Hand-on introduction Course to roboticsThe author teaches an undergraduate-level robotics and automation course for MechatronicsEngineering Technology students at a U.S. university. The course covers the following topics: Introduction to generic Robotics and background [Activity: viewing related video and Q &A; prepare the hardware and the software for the project; set up the teams.] Introduction to LEGO Robotics system (hardware & software) [Activity: Familiarize LEGO parts and open
into two three-credit classes over two semesters. Typically there are around sevenprojects supporting five to eight students depending on the complexity of the project. At thebeginning of the year, the engineering students took the Kolb learning style quick assessment.Retrieved from https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=kolb+quick+assessment. This quickassessment consists of twenty questions that determine the learning style or preference of astudent as described in table 1. Engineering students with project teams consisted mostly ofstudent learning styles that are converging and assimilating. However, each team also had one ortwo students with learning styles of diverging and accommodating. Therefore, each teamconsisted of individual learning
] Wbp Wbp 100 d. Fuel Efficiency, ηBT = [percent] mf q fSpeed Regulation of a DC motor with Pulse Width ModulationDuring this signature lab, students used a method called “Pulse Width Modulation (PWM)” toregulate the speed of a DC motor. The DC motor is probably the most important type of actuatorsused for instrumentation and control. It is widely used in agricultural machinery, medical robots,home appliances, etc. Numerically controlled lathes (mills) and 3D printing are two moderntechnologies enabled by the precision control of the speed and position of motors
% N=68Table 4. Demographics: Engineering Major, Academic Standing, Qualitative SAT, GPA Q Course Engineering Major Standing GPA SAT Civil Chem. Elec. Indust. Mech. Sophomore Junior Test, 12.2% 37.4% 5.2% 13.0% 32.2% 63.5% 34.8% 551 2.98 N=43 Control, 11.0% 33.3% 3.2% 8.9% 43.6% 68.6% 29.3% 556 2.95 N=68Data analysisThe survey responses were pooled based on engineering dimension
Education: Innovations and Research, 14(2), 29.9. Li, Q., Swaminathan, H., & Tang, J. (2009). Development of a classification system for engineering student characteristics affecting college enrollment and retention. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(4), 361.10. Doolen, T., & Long, M. (2007). Identification of retention levers using a survey of engineering freshman attitudes at oregon state university. European Journal of Engineering Education, 32(6), 721-734. doi:10.1080/0304379070152078411. Jonassen, D., Strobel, J., & Lee, C. B. (2006). Everyday problem solving in engineering: Lessons for engineering educators. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 139-151.12. Strobel, J., & Pan, R
.[14] Raspberry Pi Diagram. (n.d.). [Online]. Available:https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRxqFQoTCO2xoan7ssgCFUGNDQod140FYQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.raspberrypi.org%2Flearning%2Frobot-antenna%2Fworksheet%2F&psig=AFQjCNG9MWf-2bzcSvvTmdadxa7t1KjZOg&ust=1444396721593289. Accessed: September 22, 2015.[15] Raspberry Pi Foundation. (n.d.). About Us. [Online]. Available:https://www.raspberrypi.org/about/. Accessed September 20, 2015.[16] Raspberry Pi Foundation. (n.d.). Raspberry Pi 2 Model B. [Online]. Available:https://www.raspberrypi.org/products/raspberry-pi-2-model-b/. Accessed September 20, 2015.[17] Raspberry Pi Foundation (n.d.). Raspi-Config
number of repeated markers known headers (question, > (𝒕𝒉𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒉 − 𝟑) 2 ques, q, pre, post) Table 1. Heuristics for identifying the header row.In order to identify the boundaries of the payload within the data, we first start by identifying theheader row of the payload. The header row consists of column names of the various columnsavailable in the assessment scores. These could be student particulars such as name, identifier, orgender, or the particular assessment information, such as grade, question number, or aggregatescore. Our model consists a series of heuristics that score rows and columns for identifyingwhich row contains column headers, and which rows contain
. Q. Fan, "Challenge of Model Based Definition Technology to Engineering Graphics Education", Applied Mechanics and Materials, Vol. 163, pp. 264-268, Apr. 201211. Ziemian, C. W., “A Systems Approach to Manufacturing as Implemented within a Mechanical Engineering Curriculum,” International Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 17, No. 6, Pp. 558-568, 2001.12. Mott, R.J., Bennett, R.J., Stratton, M.J., and Scott Danielson, “Integration of Manufacturing into Mechanical Engineering Education Curricula,” ASEE Annual Conference, 2014.13. Danielson, S., Kirkpatrick, A., & Ervin, E., “ASME Vision 2030: Helping to Inform Engineering Education.” Frontiers in Education Conference Proceedings, IEEE/ASEE, October 12 - 15
Conference on Mathematics Education in a Global Community, Palermo, Italy, 2007.11. Allen, K., The Statistics Concept Inventory: Development and analysis of a cognitive assessment instrument instatistics (Doctoral dissertation), SSRN Electronic Journal, 2006, doi:10.2139/ssrn.213014312. Wilcox, B., Caballero, M., Baily, C., Sadaghiani, H., Chasteen, S., Ryan, Q., and Pollock, S., “Development anduses of upper-division conceptual assessments”, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020115 – Published 23September 2015, http://journals.aps.org/prstper/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.11.02011513. Streveler, R., Miller, R., Santiago-Roman, A., Nelson, M., Geist, M., and Olds, B., “Rigorous Methodology forConcept Inventory Development: Using the 'Assessment Triangle
improvements during an industry-‐sponsored civil engineering senior design course. Proceedings of the ASEE 2015 Annual Meeting. Washington, DC: ASEE. Paper ID #12028 11. Golder, K., & Webb, D. B. (2015). Educating, enlightening, and entertaining: Audience perceptions of the educational value of a presentation competition for engineering students. Proceedings of the ASEE 2015 Annual Meeting. Washington, DC: ASEE. Paper ID #12335 12. Gotch, C. M., Langfitt, Q., French, B. F., & Haselbach, L. (2015). Determining reliability scores from an energy literacy rubric. Proceedings of the ASEE 2015
environment,” Journal of Economic Education, 31(1), 2000, 30-43.2. Bishop, J. L., M.A. Verleger, “The Flipped Classroom: A Survey of Research,” Proceedings of the ASEE Conference, Atlanta, GA (2013).3. Foertsch, J., G. Moses, J. Strikwerda, M. Litzkow, “Reversing the Lecture/Homework Paradigm Using eTEACH Web-based Streaming video Software,” Journal of Engineering Education, 91(3), 2002, 267-274.4. Talbert, R. “Learning MATLAB in the Inverted Classroom,” Proceedings of the ASEE Conference, San Antonio, TX (2012).5. Kecskemety, K. M., B. Morin, “Student Perceptions of Inverted Classroom Benefits in a First-Year Engineering Course,” Proceedings of the ASEE Conference, Indianapolis, IN (2014).6. Stickel, M., S. Hari, Q
electronics.VI. Subsystem Design A. Rails and ArmatureThe team needed to assess whether the selected rail and armature materials would melt under thespecified current. An equation from the Melt Wear Control of Metals in High-Speed Sliding Contactspublication by then Doctoral Candidate Edin E. Balic was referenced in order to derive Equation 13,which calculates the maximum temperature rise at the exit of a metal coming in contact with anothermetal. T = 2qdkπPe α + TO (13)where d is the half-length of the armature contact path, q is the power per area, k is the thermalconductivity, Pe is the Perclet number, and α is the thermal diffusivity of the rail material. This
College. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass (1989).16. https://www.google.com/search?q=saundra+mcguire+study+cycle&biw=1084&bih=797&tbm=isch&tbo=u&so urce=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwijjqTnnMXKAhXjkIMKHQKGAhkQsAQIPA#imgrc=BwL4uD4aB4fHJM %3A.
1 1 96.2 1.9 1.9 9 39 13 0 75.0 25.0 0.0 10 28 18 6 53.8 34.6 11.5 11 38 13 1 73.1 25.0 1.9 12 38 8 6 73.1 15.4 11.5 13 44 3 5 84.6 5.8 9.6 14 40 8 4 76.9 15.4 7.7 15 40 7 5 76.9 13.5 9.6 Avg8 42.4 7.2 2.4 81.53 13.84 4.61: Q: Question from survey (see Appendix A)2: positive: Total number of students that provided positive feedback3
have different insights about their cases and after hearing many of them connections between what they were saying, the readings, and other material started to emerge. The variety of experienced speakers seemed to complement the learning process very well! If there exists a "correct" order for the presentations, this was it. The guest speakers gave an invaluable opportunity to listen to their experience, up close, whatever the outcome. Having experts come in and give testimony to their experience. Its difficult to put a value on the opportunity to have an open floor Q and A session with respected professionals.It also made some think differently about research: I enjoyed thinking
; • Didn’t apply Poisson’s equation correctly.Procedural mistakes: • Incorrectly determine the direction of Dn components; • Didn’t make complete conclusion when discussing the potential and E field at various locations.6. Capacitance.Conceptual mistakes: • Forgot ε0 when calculating D or E; • Didn’t correctly understand the total charge Q; • Had problems in recognizing different capacitor connection.Procedural mistakes: • Didn’t correctly apply boundary condition.7. Ampere’s law.Situational mistakes: • Mixed up concepts of H and B; • Couldn’t differentiate line current source vs. volume current source, so had trouble in deciding the correct coordinate system.Conceptual mistakes
provides insight to the up and coming technology. Ms. Monereau, presently is an active member of the Associated General Contractors (AGC), American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), the National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE), and the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). Through her tenure within these organizations she has served on the Board of Directors for NSBE, and multiple leadership roles throughout her undergraduate career with AGC and ASME. For more insight into her research, review her paper: Reality in the Nuclear Industry: Augmented, Mixed, and Virtual (https://peer.asee.org/?q=monereau).Dr. Makita R. PhillipsMs. Arielle M. Benjamin
– Articles • Video – Keith Sawyer “Group Genius” • Assignment Module 11 (Team) – Transformation Tech. Exec. Perspective and Virtual-Live Discussion12 Integration & Sustainment • Reading – Articles • Assignment Module 12 (Team) – Capstone Presentation – to be presented in Module 1413 Team Preparation for Capstone • Virtual-Live open discussion – Q&A in preparation for Capstone Presentation Presentation
. Barron, and C. Hulleman, "Expectancy-Value-Cost model of motivation," in International Encyclopediaof Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. Oxford. 2015.[4] B. D. Jones, M. C. Paretti, S. F. Hein, and T. W. Knott, "An analysis of motivation constructs withfirst--‐ ‐ year engineering students: Relationships among expectancies, values, achievement, and careerplans" in Journal of engineering education, vol. 99.4, 2010, pp. 319-336.[5] Q. Li, D. B. McCoach, H. Swaminathan, and J. Tang, “Development of an instrument to measureperspectives of engineering education among college students,” in Journal of Engineering Education, vol.97.1, 2008, pp. 47-56.[6] T. Perez, J. C. Cromley, and A. Kaplan, "The role of identity development, values, and costs in
interestof this manuscript is the fact that this elementary education program is 100%engineering driven.BackgroundThere are many approaches to introducing engineering into the elementary schoolenvironment. Many of these pathways have been presented at the American Associationfor Engineering Education annual conference. The Society conducts workshops on thistopic and has also published papers on various approaches. Readers are encouraged toexplore the ASEE website, https://www.asee.org/search?q=elementary+education , formore details. The DLJ program was developed in partnership with the University ofSouth Florida College of Engineering; a National Science Foundation designatedRegional Center for Advanced Technological Education in
, A. V. (2012). A realistic look at STEM and the role of community colleges. Community College Review, 40, 2.12. Harland, D. J. (2011). STEM Student Research Handbook. National Science Teachers Association.13. Heinze, N., & Hu, Q. (2009). Why college undergraduates choose IT: A multi-theoretical perspective. European Journal of Information Systems, 18 (5), 462-475.14. Houston, R. & Heflin, M. (2015) Go flight! the unsung heroes of mission control, 1965-1992. Library of congress catalog.15. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn?. Educational psychology review, 16(3), 235-266.16. Jones, J. (2010). Closing the Gender Gap, Civil Engineering, 80, 7, 60-63.17. Lent, R
, 2010.[8] B. A. Smikle Jr., “Solving Minority Underrepresentation In STEM Careers,” TheHill, 06-Mar-2015. .[9] R. Boege, “North Carolina’s 2015 STEM Report Card,” The Alliance for Science & Technology Research in America, Washington DC, 2015.[10] J. U. Ogbu and H. D. Simons, “Voluntary and Involuntary Minorities: A Cultural-Ecological Theory of School Performance with Some Implications for Education,” Anthropol. Educ. Q., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 155–188, 1998.[11] A. L. Harris, “I (don’t) hate school: revisiting oppositional culture theory of blacks’ resistance to schooling,” Soc. Forces, vol. 85, no. 2, p. 797+, Dec. 2006.[12] I. A. Toldson and D. Owens, “Editor’s Comment: ‘Acting Black’: What Black Kids
. 95-112.16. Faniel, I.M. and A. Majchrzak, Innovating by Accessing Knowledge Across Departments. Decision Support Systems, 2007. 43(4): p. 1684-1691.17. Jones, Q., G. Ravid, and S. Rafaeli, Information overload and the message dynamics of online interaction spaces: A theoretical model and empirical exploration. Information systems research, 2004. 15(2): p. 194-210.18. Attewell, P., Technology Diffusion and Organizational Learning: The Case of Business Computing. Organization Science, 1992. 3(1): p. 1-19.19. Leonardi, P.M., Activating the Informational Capabilities of Information Technology for Organizational Change. Organization Science, 2007. 18(5): p. 813-831.20. Rogers, E.M., Diffusion of