benefits to working together, as86% preferred working on a simulation with a partner; of these 56 students, 63% said thatdiscussions should be encouraged. However, the nature of their discussions was not analyzed todetermine the depth of conversations that occurred. The interactive mode requires studentsworking together equally, discussing the constructive portion of the activity. Students’reflections could provide information on their discussions, but very few students responded tothese questions on the survey. In the future, conversations should be monitored to ensure thatthey are constructive, possibly revising the discussion prompts as needed.The low number of written responses for the reflection question may indicate that students wererunning
in established lab groups at the university.Using the Qualtrics online survey software, we conducted pre-experience and post-experiencesurveys of the participants to assess the effects of participating in this summer research program.At the beginning of the summer, all participants provided their definition of technical researchand described what they hoped to get out of their research experience, and the undergraduatestudents described their future career and educational plans. At the conclusion of the summer, apost-experience survey presented participants’ with their answers from the beginning of thesummer and asked them to reflect on how their understanding of research and future plansinvolving research changed over the course of the
results of Aluminum andSteel specimens for different cases of loadingꞌ, promoted critical thinking and communication.Therefore the essential motivation was to re-confirm to the well-established perception thatꞌhands-on experiences will always outperform traditional or passive learning methodsꞌ. Howeverhands-on activities should be done in a way to provide sufficient opportunities for reflection,metacognition and a deeper understanding of the principle or physical phenomena underlying theexperimental activity. Poorly designed experiments would negate the benefits of hands-onlearning. In order to explore the effectiveness of a modeling tool as a substitution for hands-onactivity the project for spring 2016 was conceived. The ambit of tasks was much
tests,students in MSE 440 use MATLAB to apply the analysis methods described in 6 and determinethe Johnson-Cook parameters for a Ti-Al-V alloy. Using these parameters, they then predict theyield strength of the alloy for a different set of experimental conditions.5. Impact of Curriculum ChangesSurveys administered in each course assessed students’ attitudes toward and reflections on thecomputational curriculum. Preliminary results derived from these surveys and an evaluation ofimpact on exam-based performance are discussed in 15;16 . Here, we describe new results obtainedfrom studying students’ perspectives on the computational curriculum and their owncomputational competency as they progressed through the undergraduate program.5.1. Students
course of thenext 4 academic years, the achievement of student outcomes and student feedback on the courseswere monitored while minor changes were made to the curriculum. While student outcomes weregenerally achieved, student dissatisfaction with the course structure was high. In the 2016- 2017academic year, several substantial changes were made to the sophomore and junior lab courses inresponse to this data. Curricular changes included an increased emphasis on pseudo-codedevelopment, routine reflection on assumptions and limitations of models used in lab meetings,and a move of the lectures and discussions to after the in-depth lab assignments. In addition,short modules on data analysis, elementary statistics, and linear algebra were
undergraduate materials engineering students, as well as any other studentsallowed by their programs to take unrestricted engineering electives. I selected the history ofmaterials because it was a topic that has always been of interest to me, and because it tied wellwith the long history of the places where we would be traveling. The course has now beenoffered three times (May 2012, 2015, 2016) with the course content being continuously revised.There is a particular focus throughout on metals and metals processing, which reflects both mypersonal background and an area of emphasis at my university. Although there is some emphasison German (and European) history, the content is generally global in scope.Course DescriptionThe primary text for the course
were able to analyze their experimental processes from differentperspectives to explain and present in a professional manner. It seems well consistencythat students with higher assessment scores in the six criteria have higher course grades.Some team members with lower performances were mainly due to not the adequatethroughout project development, which was reflected on the quality of requested deliverables,including the final presentation. This means that students are lack of enough knowledge orhave a wealth of disconnected knowledge and do not know how to build relationships amongthem. Students become more confident to face and deal with the laboratory problems aftertraining with the design-based course modules. In addition
testing can be done in about 2 hours. Like standard batteries, the voltage output reflects thechemical potential difference of the electrode metals and the flow of current happens through iontransport in the electrolytes and salt bridge. This origami paper microfluidic battery is a low-costactivity that deepens the understanding of capillary action, chemical potential, and chargetransport in batteries. It also represents a hands-on way to introduce students to the emergingtechnology of paper microfluidics.Introduction to Paper Microfluidic TechnologyPaper-based analytical devices are an emerging, ultra-low cost, open-source, scalable, portable,solution for biological and chemical sensing assays pioneered by Carrilho, Martinez, &Whitesides
opportunity to present the background and motivation behind the project, and the objective of the project. A brief summary of the project constraint, criteria, procedures and the results you obtained should also be presented here. Mechanics AnalysisThis section is to present the theory to calculate the maximum stress and the failure loadof the component. Material SelectionThis section should include the three candidate materials that satisfy the constraint andthe final selection. State the candidate material properties, and the final selection basedon the constraint and criteria. Discuss the result of the decision matrix. Reflect thedifference between the online data you used for
instilling confidence in the results in cases where there wasreasonable agreement or prompting reflection where there was not agreement.Typical wood strength values used in structural design are much lower than published clearstrength values. Clear strength values typically represent the mean as-tested values of clearspecimens (without knots, cracks or other defects), whereas design values are often two standarddeviations below the mean to ensure a 95% probability of the wood not failing. Toconservatively estimate the strength of pine in Uganda, EMI would typically use design valuesfor “mixed southern pine” from U.S. standards, which are shown in Table 4 below. Though thisstudy did not include enough clear specimens of each species of Ugandan wood