AC 2012-4979: CREATIVITY GARDEN ANALOGYDr. Don L. Dekker, University of South Florida Don Dekker has been an Adjunct Professor of mechanical engineering at the University of South Florida since 2002. He is currently teaching the capstone design course. Before his retirement in 2001, Dekker taught at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. He first joined ASEE in 1974 and some of his ASEE activities include Zone II Chairman (1986-1988), Chairman of DEED (1989-1990), and General Chair of FIE, 1987. His degrees include a Ph.D., Stanford University, 1973; a M.S.M.E, University of New Mexico, 1963; and a B.S.M.E., Rose Polytechnic Institute, 1961. He became a Fellow of ASEE in 2007.Dr. Rajiv Dubey, University of South
opportunities for students to learn prototyping and design-thinking tocomplement the more formal, in class engineering education. Student led workshops arepresented as the start of a systemic series of extracurricular design learning experiences.IntroductionThe number of academic makerspaces has grown rapidly in the last five years. Many of thesespaces focus on developing engineering design skills and nurturing a design thinking mindset byproviding students with space, resources, and training. Extracurricular activities have beenshown to play an important role in design and innovation learning, particularly in makerspaces[1]. Moreover, peer-to-peer learning in classroom and project-based courses like senior capstonedesign have been found to play a
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
varies, but one common objective is toimprove students’ creative thinking skills. In this paper, we sought to quantify changes in studentcreativity that resulted from participation in a mechanical engineering course targeted atintegrating engineering, technology, and the arts. The course was team taught by instructors frommechanical engineering and art. The art instructor introduced origami principles and techniquesas a means for students to optimize engineering structures. Through a course project, engineeringstudent teams interacted with art students to perform structural analysis on an origami-based artinstallation, which was the capstone project of the art instructor’s undergraduate origami course.Three engineering student teams extended
educational setting could be changed, considering a range of possible educator moves or actions, hypothesizing how changes to the educational setting and/or the educator’s actions may influence shifts in the students’ engagement/learning and developing intentions and associated plans-of-action for when similar situations arise in the future (in light of salient learning goals). 4. Communicate effectively about their scholarly practice in written, oral and visual forms through a capstone project by writing a synthesis paper, building a visual poster representation of their argument, and presenting their poster publically.We prepared rubrics to track the progress of the LAs along these dimensions of learning
learn how to make their projects more visible. While moststudents utilize social media already, few have developed project portfolios, andacademic makerspaces can naturally demonstrate the value for career preparation androle model the development of better project documentation.Moving forward, the authors hope to conduct follow up interviews for all four spaces asthe university and makerspace functions continue to develop. To begin to assess the long-term impact on engineering student design skills, longitudinal studies from the first-yearthrough capstone should be used. Many first-year engineering programs now utilizemakerspaces, either embedded in the design course itself or by encouraging training anduse of the larger school makerspace
. 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
approximately 100 papers and has been awarded over $3 million of research grants.Dr. Richard H. Crawford, University of Texas, Austin Dr. Richard H. Crawford is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering at The University of Texas at Austin and is the Temple Foundation Endowed Faculty Fellow No. 3. He is also Director of the Design Projects program in Mechanical Engineering. He received his BSME from Louisiana State University in 1982, and his MSME in 1985 and Ph.D. in 1989, both from Purdue University. He teaches mechanical engineering design and geometry modeling for design. Dr. Crawford’s research interests span topics in computer- aided mechanical design and design theory and methodology. Dr. Crawford is co-founder of the
Foundation (NSF) funded projects: Professional Formation of Engineers: Research Initiation in Engineering Formation (PFE: RIEF) - Using Digital Badging and Design Challenge Modules to Develop Professional Identity; Professional Formation of Engineers: REvolutionizing engineering and computer science Departments (IUSE PFE\RED) - Formation of Accomplished Chemical Engineers for Transform- ing Society. She is a member of the CBE department’s ABET and Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, as well as faculty advisor for several student societies. She is the instructor of several courses in the CBE curriculum including the Material and Energy Balances, junior laboratories and Capstone Design courses. She is associated with
designprocess’.Introduction Imagine the scenario of a patient with a broken arm seeking help from a treesurgeon. We would hope that before diving into the complexities of fixing a broken armthe tree surgeon would look at the big picture and re-direct the confused patient to anappropriate medical practitioner, perhaps along the way handing out a business card.Such a far fetched scenario is quite often not far from the mark for the engineer. Indeedmany ‘design’ problems are often presented in such eloquent and well specified formatsthat the engineer often feels obliged to dive into a design process. Despite this, it isimperative to take a step back from the initial project proposal, problem description, etc.and undertake a situation
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
innovation principles andactivities in an effort to develop a new innovation product, process, or service. The purpose ofthe capstone experience was to evaluate if the students understood the principles well enoughthat they could go through each principle as steps towards identifying a problem and thendeveloping an innovative solution. Consequently day-two of the Innovation Boot Campconsisted of each group showing how they came up with the problem and solution of theircapstone project using the five key principles of innovation. A panel of judges from local designand engineering companies were brought in to evaluate the student’s projects. Additionally, thestudents self and peer evaluated each other’s projects, in an effort to help them further
mechanical engineers can impart directly with stakeholders and users.Because items imagined can be within the size of consumer products where solutions may besimply created and mocked up (Brandt, 2007), there is a unique opportunity to better understandthese students’ behaviors in designing and prototyping.This research project explores how a cohort of senior mechanical engineering students candesign and prototype solutions for a problem today, and how their solutions are changed whenasked to be placed out into the future. We are curious about the similarities and differences intheir approaches along aspects of the design process (cognition) and in the design result(artifacts). This project allows us to explore how engineering students conceive of
the final year of engineering education, as part of the capstone design experience. Studentsfirst begin to develop design skills while they are also integrating their engineering contentknowledge and learning to apply it in authentic (or pseudo-authentic) contexts. In some cases,design is also introduced as part of a “cornerstone” experience in the first year of an engineeringprogram. Generally, however, the bulk of the engineering curriculum consists of engineeringscience courses that rely heavily on theoretical mathematics and closed-ended problem solving.Many design studies have investigated the difference between novices and experts in practicingdesign. Novice designers perceive the design task as a well-structured problem5 and
experience through an engineering-based productdevelopment capstone project that also incorporates the key principles of systems engineering.This teaching model is delivered via an Integrated Design & Manufacturing Infrastructure(IDMI), which incorporates virtual resources, such as Computer-Aided Design (CAD) systems,as well as physical resources, such as additive manufacturing machines like 3D printers. Themodel utilizes a cloud computing-based IT infrastructure for collaborative, distributedengineering and can be implemented at either high school or undergraduate freshmen level tointroduce students to a variety of Engineering Design related activities in a holistic fashion.In Section 1, a brief overview of the key elements of the teaching
historical innovators as provided in the CG suite.Originally, the historical innovator technique was introduced as part of the capstone designexperience at the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA), Department of EngineeringMechanics. We tested the evolved technique with the extended set of innovators at TheUniversity of Texas (UT) as part of freshman signature course and a multi-disciplinary seniordesign projects course. To introduce students to our idea of being inspired by historicalinnovators, we present an example about how other students have used this model for designideation. We prompt the discussion with paragon words of wisdom from Isaac Newton, “If Ihave seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants
these spaces through a mixed-method study. A quantitative longitudinal studyof students in a mechanical engineering program collected data on design self-efficacy,makerspace involvement, and user demographics through surveys conducted on freshmen,sophomores, and seniors. In this paper, the student responses from three semesters of freshmenlevel design classes are evaluated for involvement and self-efficacy based on whether or not a 3Dmodeling project requires the use of makerspace equipment. The study finds that students requiredto use the makerspace for the project were significantly more likely to become involved in themakerspace.These results inspired us to integrate a qualitative approach to examine how student involvementand exposure to
machine Engineering Students (ME) To correct a wobbling issues with a mechanical arm ME470 – Mechanical To generate bold new solutions for Capstone Design Engineering the students’ final projects (6 Sections) SeniorsResults of IdeaKeg Survey:To assess the impact and perception of the IdeaKeg tool at RHIT, a survey was distributed toboth problem owners and participants. Of the 459 participants, 120 (117
Paper ID #30274Development of a Mentorship Program between Upper-class and First YearEngineering Students through 3D printingDr. Charlotte Marr de Vries, Penn State Erie, The Behrend College Dr. Charlotte de Vries is an Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Penn State Erie, the Behrend College. She received her B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Massachusetts in 2009. She received her M.S. (2013) and Ph.D. (2014) in Mechanical Engineering from the Pennsylvania State University. She teaches Introduction to Engineering Design, Capstone Design, Dynamics, System Dy- namics, and Instrumentation
. The final EDP, the culmination or “capstone” project, was deliberately designed to fall along the extreme right of every one of the scales, leveraging the anticipation of an extremely fun project to build excitement and enthusiasm for what would prove to be a significantly challenging engineering problem. Students were tasked to develop prototype
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
4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th Decile Figure 6. Average P-S Index per decile across all protocols.Significance of Preliminary ResultsThese preliminary results form the control for the results of seniors and practitioners that are nowbeing collected. They provide an evidence-based foundation for the effects of educationalinterventions between freshmen and senior years. Both the results of the design cognition of thefreshmen and the seniors will be compared with those of the practitioners to determine learningtrajectories across formal education and practice.The results from this project motivate learning in upper-division courses, improve performancein capstone
Committee for Wearable Information Systems and has served as general chair and program co-chair of the IEEE Computer Society's International Symposium on Wearable Computers.Marie Paretti, Virginia Tech Marie C. Paretti is an assistant professor of Engineering Education at Virginia Tech, where she co-directs the Virginia Tech Engineering Communications Center. Her research focuses on communication in engineering design, interdisciplinary communication and collaboration, and design education. She was awarded a CAREER grant from NSF to study expert teaching practices in capstone design courses nationwide, and is co-PI on several NSF grants to explore interdisciplinary collaboration in engineering
), 3) choosing a mentor, 4) choosing a potential employer, 5) developing critical skills listed in company job postings, 6) planning for a career fair, 7) writing a 1-3 minute career fair plea/pitch for potential employers, 8) preparing for paid internships, 9) preparing for a full time job, 10) preparing for interviews, 11) preparing for a paid project (e.g. University Undergraduate Research Initiative (UURI), Western Alliance to Expand Student Opportunities (WAESO); see [33] summarizing 14 such projects), 12) preparing for a senior design capstone project, 13) preparing for an honor’s thesis, 14) preparing for graduate school, 15) preparing a statement of purpose, 16) preparing for graduate work (e.g. thesis), 17) preparing for
, 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
World Prosthetics, dedicated to creating low-cost prostheticand assistive devices [14]. It is an integral component of the recently implementeddevelopment engineering doctoral courses at UC-Berkeley [15]. Finally, the capstone course ofthe software engineering program at Lappeenranta University in Finland incorporates thedesign process structure [16]. In all cases, use of the design process has resulted in increasedstudent engagement. However, a closer look at these examples and others suggests that thedesign process is most commonly found in advanced undergraduate or graduate courses with asmall enrollment. Given this, we wondered to what extent the design process is transferable tointroductory courses that enroll close to two hundred students
decisions as we flipped our multi-sectionsophomore project-based design engineering course, Mechanical Engineering (ME 270). Ourcourse is part of the mechanical engineering department’s critical design course chain, whichalso includes a course on introduction to engineering graphics and two senior capstone designcourses (Mechanical Systems and Multidisciplinary). These critical design courses are “chained”together through prerequisites. ME 270 serves as the initial exposure to the application ofengineering design tools and methodologies, which are shared across the chain.In ME 270 students work in permanent design teams tasked with the creation of micro-economykits (projects) resulting in a working design prototype that promotes sustainability and
those courses, but also for courses of study related to the Design Process, such as asenior-level Capstone Design Project. The creation of a reference Design Process Rubric wouldbegin to lay the foundation to address some of the barriers to both an advance placement and / orfor a dual-enrollment course (secondary and undergraduate credit).IntroductionThe work reported in this paper began with the Strategies for Engineering Education K – 16(SEEK-16) Summit held on February 21 and 22nd, 2005 at the National Academy ofEngineering. As a direct result of SEEK-16: (1) funding was provided by several NationalScience Foundation (NSF) awards; (2) a research program was conducted to study the rationale
’ perceptions of these notebooks.Types of engineering notebooksA brief review of the literature reveals that engineering notebooks can take many formsand be used for many purposes. For example, Tillema and Smith (2000)24 identified threedistinct types: 1. A dossier is a notebook or portfolio that is completed at the end of a project or course to “collect mandated documentation on performance. In this case, the portfolio construction is not necessarily based on a learning orientation” (p. 194)24. 2. A learning portfolio is a living document used to evaluate learning over the course of the project or semester. 3. A reflective portfolio is also a living document, in which the author records his or her