solve for the deflection andstress of a cantilever Euler-Bernoulli beam under a single point load as shown in Figure 1. Forthis problem, consider the following geometric properties: length 550 mm, height 12.7 mm (0.5in) and thickness 63.5 mm (2.5 in). A load equal to m=4.53 kg (10 lbs.) is applied 32.5 mm fromits free end as shown in Figure 1. Consider the Young Modulus E of the beam to be equal to 70GPa and gravity to be equal to g=9.81 m/s2. x Figure 1. Cantilever beam under a concentrated load.The approaches covered in this course to solve for the deflection and stress of the cantileverEuler-Bernoulli beam under a point load as shown
, participants in the second tutorial group were expected to independentlyexplore and were only provided feedback when the program determined he/she had deviated toofar from a potential solution. The three groups are compared by measuring the time needed to 1)successfully construct the same model in a testing phase, 2) use multiple methods to construct thesame model in a testing phase, and 3) construct a novel model.KeywordsMultiple solutions, Intelligent Tutoring System, Strategic Flexibility, Computer-Aided Design(CAD), Boolean OperationsIntroductionComputer-Aided-Design (CAD) software development was started by General Motors ResearchLaboratories in the early 1960s. Today, CAD software has become the most prevalent engineeringdesign approach used in
, computers with thousands processors were widely used for scientific research. Acomputer cluster consists of a number of computers to work as a system on computationalintensive tasks. Different processors are connected by network. Shared-memory or distributedmemory are dominate storage types for HPC cluster [1]. The advent of commodity highperformance processors, low-latency/high-bandwidth networks, software infrastructure anddevelopment tools facilitate the cluster to be widely used for climate modeling, disasterprediction, protein folding, oil and gas industry, and energy research [1, 2]. Currently China’sTianhe-2 is ranking No. 1 among all the super computers based on TOP500 project. Titan (OakRidge National Lab) and Sequoia (Lawrence Livermore
complexsystems that bring the solution of real world problems to the desktop. Universities maintain thelatest of these systems, recognizing the direct benefit towards the attainment of studentoutcomes, especially in the engineering disciplines which need to comply with EAC-ABETcriteria. Johannesen suggests that “When understood, more interesting and complicatedsituations can be explored with the help of computational tools”[1].Tajvidi et al note that“Particularly in engineering dynamics, Computer Simulation and Animation [CSA ] modules candemonstrate motion of particles and rigid bodies through computer animations, helping studentspicture the concepts taught in the course”[2].Computers have their greatest impact not bydisplacing the entire course, but
intensive, hands-on, motivationalexperience where each student would build, program, and develop the interface between theprogramming board and the robot hardware. We hoped that along the way the students wouldlearn about different engineering fields, computer science, and also the basics of computerprogramming and interfacing. The course concluded with a robot competition. Studentscompeted to see which robot could go through an unknown maze without bumping into mazewalls in the shortest time. The course objectives included: 1) Take the mystery out ofengineering and computing, 2) Show that engineering and computer science is fun and exciting,3) Demonstrate that engineering is for both women and men, 4) Emphasize hands-on, learn bydoing exercises
comparisonacross multiple years. These visualizations include tracking of student performance on a range ofstandardized assessments including the Force Concept Inventory (FCI).1 the Force and MotionConceptual Evaluation (FMCE) of Thornton and Sokoloff (1998)2, and the Brief Electricity andMagnetism Assessment (BEMA).3 Assessments can be viewed as pre- and post-tests withcomparative statistics (e.g., normalized gain), decomposed by answer in the case of multiple-choice questions, and manipulated using prespecified data transformations such as aggregationand refinement (drill down and roll up). The system is designed to support inclusion of a rangeof supervised inductive learning methods for schema inference, unsupervised learning algorithmsfor similarity
various examples and implementations through several oneonone interactions. Oneonone interactions help facilitate a great teaching environment, and are often utilized to teach students about programming misconceptions and errors in an introductory programming course. The repetitive nature of a substantial portion of these interactions makes them a prime candidate for improving scalability through automation. Automated assessment of programming exercises is often utilized to bridge the scalability gap. However, the openended nature of programming assignments can lead to (1) misguided automatic feedback, (2) a disconnection between an errant student solution and proper advice, (3) a complete lack of advice due to the student not understanding
-relatedcourses, and the course assessment showed positive learning outcomes. The exploratoryproject is a work in progress and we will continue the development in order to lead anational model of SDR laboratory based courses.1. IntroductionToday, there are more than 355 million wireless subscribers in the US, which is 110% ofthe US population. There are 208 million smart phones and 35 million tablets, and 44%of US households are wireless only. It is reported that every $1 invested in wirelessdeployments amounts to $10 in added Gross Domestic Product, including impact uponjobs and wages1. The explosion of wireless technology has made it a hot topic inundergraduate education. Many talented students in the Science, Technology,Engineering, and Mathematics
will also be discussed.This will go a long way in motivating technology students to take this important, professionalexam, eliminating their fear, improving their understanding, and reinforcing the best practices forlife-long learningIntroductionThe Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam is typically the first step in the process leading tothe P.E. license. It is designed for recent graduates and students who are close to finishing anundergraduate engineering degree.The National Institute for Certification of Engineering Technologies (NICET, a division ofNational Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE)) defines technologists 1 as follows:“Engineering technologists are members of the engineering team who work closely withengineers, scientists
(LMS). The authors utilized the State-of-the-Art Matrix analysis,which is a research method that has been used extensively in the last decade. It is a systematicevaluation of existing research by using several statistical methods. Pareto analysis andHistograms are part of this analysis. The analysis revealed several gaps: (1) engineering studentshave not been the main focus of research in any studies, (2) there is no research that comparesusability of LMS between different academic disciplines, (3) there is no modeling effort forunderstanding if engineering students and instructors need different LMS design than otherdisciplines, (4) primary framework development for evaluating LMS has declined, (5) discountusability methods (heuristics) have
learn about student preferences and behaviors regarding their exam times. This paper exploresthe exam times that students choose, when students make and change their reservations, and thecorrelation between when students choose to take exams and their exam performance.Among our results, we find that students prefer to take exams in late afternoon/early eveningtowards the end of the exam period. In addition, we find that students frequently re-schedulewhen they take exams; 42% of reservations are later canceled/rescheduled. Finally, we find thatthere is a correlation between how early in the exam period a student takes an exam and theirscore on the exam.1 IntroductionIn large classes, running exams can be a logistical nightmare, which leads
and lessonslearned that can be used to improve other MOOC offerings. The authors give suggestions on howto attract potential learners, minimize and recover costs, improve passing rates, and respond toparticipants’ inquiries despite a seemingly overwhelming participant-to-instructor ratio.1. IntroductionMassive open online courses (MOOCs) are a relatively recent phenomenon in higher education.The term was first used at the University of Manitoba in 2008 for a course in which 25 payingstudents were joined by approximately 2200 non-paying members of the general public [1, 2].Interest in MOOCs exploded in the national media in 2011 when Stanford University attractedapproximately 160,000 students for an "Introduction to Artificial Intelligence
languages in the 1990's/2000's. Today, even relativelysimple embedded systems in practice may consist of tens of thousands of C code. However, introductory courses and textbooks mainly still focus on configuring and interfacing with peripherals, with little guidance provided to students on how to write programs that are elegant, robust, and scalable. The result is that much embedded systems code, including much commercial code, follows no particular programming discipline, is prone to bugs, and is hard to maintain. Many commercial embedded systems projects fail to become products, or 1experience failures in the field, as a
softwaredevelopment eco-system.The hardware tool adapted for this work includes the NXP Kinetis TWR-K65F180Mdevelopment board and an in-house designed CODEC board. Both of these boards are used aspart of the NXP Tower System Modular Development Board Platform as shown in Figure 1.This system allows for additional boards to be added for additional features. For example, wehave an in-house developed user interface board with a character LCD module and keypad. Figure 1: DSP platform based on TWR-K65F180M board and custom CODEC.Kinetis TWR-K65F180M development boardThe development board is based on the NXP Kinetis K65 microcontroller. The K65microcontroller is ARM Cortex-M4 based, runs at a clock speed of 180 MHZ, and has floatingpoint and DSP extensions
allow for moreefficient learning and cognitive material intake [1][2]. It has been statistically shown thatstudents are more motivated by game-based learning and that this has a significant impact ontheir learning achievement [3]. Serious game tasks can promote 21st century problem solvingskills and knowledge of concepts [4]–[6]. Interaction with a 3D environment in VR is powerfulto both static and dynamic information, and some of the most well-engineered and commerciallysuccessful applications for direct-manipulation interfaces are video games [7]. Using knowledgetests, immersive serious games have been shown to captivate students more than traditionalmethods, leading to superior retention [8].Increased motivation and engagement can result
agents as shown in Figure 1. Due to all of the previously mentionedcharacteristics, a large gap in communication leaves a lot of room for the optimization of thisprocess. In order to optimize the advising process in the setting previously defined and keeping inmind a systems approach to this challenge, we are proposing the application of a multi-agenttechnique that will allow the students to take more control of their individualized advising. Thisproposed system is similar to the smart grid concept which was chosen due to the positivefeedback from the implementation of such distributed control systems5. In this context, thestudent tool becomes an agent and the program administrators become operators that provide(with certain flexibility
students sit in front of the camera and the virtual laboratorysystem monitors their facial expressions and head motions in order to identify suspiciousbehaviors. Upon detection of such suspicious behaviors, the system records a video for furtheranalysis by the laboratory administrator. An evaluation of the feasibility of this approach ispresented.1. IntroductionAs one of the most important implementations of virtual reality (VR), virtual laboratories (VLs)are becoming more and more popular at various levels of education and in various fields oftraining. There are several factors that speed up the development of VL systems. The first factor isthe wide-spread adoption of the Internet which provides the possibility of remote access to VLs
(Learning Management System), and LCMS (Learning Content Management System) platforms,with the more communicative and agile PLEs (Personal Learning Environments)1. The termPersonal Learning Environment (PLE) describes the tools, communities, and services thatconstitute the individual educational platforms learners use to direct their own learning andpursue educational goals. A PLE is frequently contrasted with a learning management system inthat an LMS tends to be course-centric, whereas a PLE is learner-centric.A PLE refers not to a specific service or application but rather to an idea of how individualsapproach the task of learning2. A PLE is a system that helps learners take control of and managetheir own learning3. This includes providing
Active Learning (AL) of these geographic concepts, thus leading to a lack ofinterest and aversion among students. Use of VR based methods with improved visualization ofthe concepts like map projection, coordinate system, geographic datum, etc. help betterunderstanding and in turn facilitate CT/PS skills of the students. Virtual environments created forGIS instruction can be visualized using a range of user interfaces and platforms such as desktopvirtual reality (dVR), CAVE, Head Mounted Displays (HMD), and augmented VR etc. As seenfrom Figure.1, each one of these platforms have their advantages and disadvantages with respectto the degree of immersion, presence, navigation, interaction, etc. CAVEs offer high end fidelity,immersion and navigation
learning engineering is important to studyand understand for various reasons, including: (1) use of technology tools by students is widespread,and (2) use of technology tools in primary, secondary, and college classrooms is increasing rapidly asnew devices that balance cost, functionality and portability shift the use of computing devices frompersonal purposes to mainstream course applications, such as with 3D printing, for academicpurposes. We will present the results of studying the impact of using one such device, a 3D printer,on students’ academic performance via a subset of course objectives for an introductory engineeringcourse. This paper inherently focuses on student perceived value and learning impact(comprehension of learning outcomes
Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering and is interested in increasing classroom engagement and student learning. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 Reasonable or Ridiculous? Engineering Intuition in SimulationsIntroductionA successful engineer must not only be proficient in complex calculations, or the simulationsoftware that may perform these calculations, but must be able to evaluate whether a result is“reasonable or ridiculous.” This type of “engineering intuition” is essential, and teaching it is notalways as straightforward as technical material.Often described as a “gut feeling,” intuition is based on a set of rules applied subconsciously.1-3For complex situations, using intuition
by high creativity students, which resulted inbetter problem solving skills. As for the cognitive level, both the low and high creativitystudents demonstrated that they are able to apply and analyze newly learned information;however, more high creativity students were able to reach Evaluate cognitive level duringlearning activities.IntroductionThe objective of engineering education is not only to enrich students' engineering knowledgebut also to enhance their interest in engineering curriculum through efficient teachingstrategies, learning activities, and technology-assisted learning, so that students are able todemonstrate relevant knowledge and meet requirements for future work 1. Unlike scienceeducation, engineering education aims to
autogenerates successively harder problems for a student to solve. Scores per student are reported to the instructor. Figure 1: Boolean algebra tool. (a) User prompted to select a property. Goal and initial equation shown. (b) User selects terms. (c) Continue applying properties to reach goal. Combinational circuits A student next learns how logic gates that implement Boolean algebra's operations of AND, OR, and NOT can be connected as combinational circuits to implement
shown in fig. 1.Fig. 1: Number of feedbacks per labThe first part of the survey required personal information of the student or teacher, like name,age and school. The purpose was to avoid double or fake entries. In respect of theparticipant’s privacy none of this information was shared with others. Second, we asked forthe lab the students tested. Thus, testing multiple labs required the student to fill out multiplefeedback forms. The main part of the survey was oriented on the user’s experience. We splitthe questions into: 1) Grid type questions, where the students could select whether they agree or not to a statement about the lab (see fig. 2) and 2) Paragraph type questions, where students could write open-ended answers. Students
the manufacturer, operator and/or other connected devices. A simple IoT buildingblock is shown in Figure 1. Each object within the network is uniquely identifiable, can beaccessed through a network and can be controlled using lightweight software. Though IoT is stillemerging, there have been such projections that as many as 100 billion IoT devices would beinterconnected by 2025 with a global economic impact of more than $11 trillion. This is largelydue to the anticipated IoT impact on agriculture, healthcare, energy management, security, etc. OBJECTS/ APPLICATIONS CLOUD THINGS Figure 1: A simple IoT
questions, with 73% earnestly attempting 80%100%. Only 1% of students blatantly "cheat the system" by earnestly attempting less than 20% of questions. Thus, the heartening conclusion is that students will take advantage of a welldesigned learning opportunity rather than just quickly earning points. We noted that earnestness decreased as a course progressed, with analyses indicating the decrease being mostly due to tiredness or some other student factor, rather than increasing difficulty. We also found that analyzing perquestion earnestness can help question authors find questions that need improvement. In addition to providing results of our earnestness analysis, this paper also describes the style by which the learning questions were made
that MOOCs can be marketed as professional developmentof working engineers and dissemination of highly technical information.IntroductionMassive open online courses (MOOCs) are a relatively young and rapidly growing concept inonline education. The term, MOOC, has been defined as “any online educational course that isavailable at no or minimal cost, is open to a very large number of students, and for which theeducational materials and resources are freely available online” (p. 218).1 In general, MOOCsare free of the typical educational barriers of prerequisites, fees, and hard requirements forparticipation in the course, creating an investment-free option to access learning materials.2Indeed, those who enroll in MOOCs are free to enter and
course.Student perceptions of the use of iPads in the classroom and student attitudes and studentaccomplishments are considered with similar results as reported by Goyings, Klosky, andCrawford [1], and Zhu [2].II. Classroom Instructional MethodsStudents who are in a traditional lecture setting often are so busy trying to capture what is beingsaid at the instant the speaker says it that they do not have the time to reflect upon what is beingsaid. Therefore, they may miss significant topical points because they are trying to transcribe theinstructor’s words. [3][4]. In a flipped classroom, the class-lecture time is replaced by in-classactivities. Lectures and other learning material are delivered so that students are able to view andimmerse themselves in
One byproduct of thiscreative opportunity, however, is the challenge faced by instructors in identifying practicalinsights and principles to apply when considering and/or developing videos.In this paper, we aim to achieve two objectives: (1) summarize the research surrounding onlineeducational videos, and (2) provide a list of seven recommendations for creating educationalvideos high in pedagogical value. We are writing this paper primarily for instructors andinstructional designers, so we focus both objectives on creating online videos that then exist inthe context of a wider educational endeavor (e.g., an online or blended course). In the firstsection, we address the issue of the best design model for educational videos. In the
engineers thatcan lead to cost reductions and expediting product development in extremely complexengineering environments. The present study, pioneered by a large US aerospace companyworking with educators at 5 major engineering schools in the US, engineering educationresearchers, and practicing engineers, is a first step towards achieving this overall vision. In thispaper, we characterize how engineering students enrolled in a senior capstone course interact andperform on complex engineering tasks commonly seen in the aerospace industry. We describeour instrumentation methodology and the data architecture for an associated analytics platform.We use course clickstreams, social networking and collaborations as the basis for ourobservations.1