to an inquiry-based learning stylelaboratory to scaffold and provide coaching on the experiment design process10. While updatingthis course there were significant content changes; however, the content changes reflected theinstructors’ decision to expose students to a wider range of biotransport problems rather thantrying to modify the laboratories to fit the new model. In the new course, students work onteams to answer three open-ended problems by designing and implementing an experiment andanalyzing their collected data. For each problem, the students are expected to articulate theirexperimental approach and results through oral presentations and a written scientific report.In Fall 2010, a studio-style course on Professional Elements of
observe others doing something different that could impact their measurement or yours? ‐ Identify one or two challenges in following this procedure.4 Participants Identify This step helps participants reflect on what was learned. This helps them get Concepts beyond doing a fun exercise to considering how the effort might be important for other tasks. Questions include: ‐ How does the information from the good measurement practice relate to your experience in the Flask Exercise
design cycle during their evaluation hasbeen difficult. A large percentage of students are able to reflect on the operation of their circuitsto determine if the design criteria within constraints have been achieved. However, few take thenext steps to investigate what caused deviations from expected performance and to identifywhere they should focus efforts to redesign the circuit to more closely match the designspecifications.Two approaches to stimulate students to complete the design cycle have been developed atVirginia Tech and used in junior-level courses. In one approach, students in an ac circuitslaboratory course are asked to directly compare the results of their analyses with the measuredresults by physically overlaying plots of the
the learning style, people learn best if they follow a cycle consisting of four steps (axes):experiencing (concrete experience), watching (reflective observation), thinking/modeling(abstract conceptualization), and applying/doing (active experimentation). Thus, activeexperimentation is an essential part of the learning process. Kolb’s learning cycle has been usedin various engineering education programs such as civil2-4, mechanical4, chemical2, 3, 5,industrial6, aeronautical4, and manufacturing2, 3, 7 engineering.The success of robotics projects in engineering education has been well reported in literature.The advanced robotics system described in this work is based on the newest hardware andsoftware robotics and electronic entertainment
. The final parameter analyzed was the mean GPA; thisincreased from 2.57 to 3.03, an 18% improvement. Overall, these were significant improvementsover the classes that did not use these hands-on Multisim projects.Instructors also reflected on their use of Multisim in these classes, “I have taught Digital LogicDesign courses without labs, with labs using hardware (breadboard, ICs, resistors, etc.), and withlabs using Multisim simulator. I find Multisim to be extremely useful and it has helped me inteaching complex topics with quick hands-on examples. This has enabled me to cover conceptualtopics in more depth and, usually, more topics quickly. Student response has been very positiveand their assessment of learning has improved significantly
frequency by 15% or more. This creates ateachable moment, as students reflect on their success in one design, and their failure to meetspecifications in another design. In this paper a graphical technique is introduced that helpsstudents to predict the impact of Gain-Bandwidth Product limitation of a µA741op-amp.Recognizing that the real world op-amp itself can be modeled as a first order transfer function,this paper presents graphical techniques that can be used early in the design process to “pre-compensate” for gain-bandwidth product limitations. Using these techniques, students are thenable to meet specifications with their µA741 op-amps. Finally, using a more expensive (LM318)op-amp, with 15MHz gain-bandwidth product illustrate that minimal
, and reflect on the impacts their choices had on rocket performance using distincttools from the discipline of each course.Among the novel aspects of our approach is to expand beyond a two-course project sequencespanning just one academic year, a technique already used in many engineering curricula.Instead, our project is integrated into a multi-year five-required-course sequence with at least onecourse appearing in each year of the four-year mechanical engineering curriculum. We expectthis approach to engender significant benefits to student learning. First, it promotes “spacedrepetition”, wherein learners encounter the same material in briefer sessions spread over longertime periods rather than the study of information in single blocks, as
engineering students by problem-based education,” European Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 203-214, 20037. Heylen, C., et al., “Problem solving and engineering design, introducing bachelor students to engineering practice at K. U. Leuven,” European Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 375-386, Aug. 20078. Davis, D., et al., “A conceptual model for capstone engineering design performance and assessment,” Proceedings of the 2006 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 20069. Davis, D., et al., “Assessing design and reflective practice in capstone engineering design courses,” Proceedings of the 2009 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 200910. Stansbury, R. S., Barott, W. C., and Salamah, S
Exit Surveys: The goal of the survey is to determine the impact of hands-on learning asstudents reflect on their academic experiences. Student input also reveals the expected value ofthese experiences in their professional careers as they have, typically, completed their job searchand have an understanding of the knowledge and skill sets that will employ in the near future.4.0 ComparisonThe three models of implementation of the hands-on activities can be compared against severalcriteria as shown in the table below. The model described in Section 2.1, Small In-ClassActivities in Lecture-Based Courses, is abbreviated as “Small In-Class Labs.” The modeldescribed in Section 2.2, Student-Owned Equipment in Lab Courses, is abbreviated as“Ubiquitous