solutions. As discussed in Felder et al., there is not a singularstyle of engineer -- some people in the field enjoy practical, detail-oriented tasks while others prefer morecreative theoretical projects [1]. The engineering methods used vary between individuals due to the diversityof humanity. No two people are the same, because everyone comes from a different background, withdifferent ways of interacting with the world. Engineers cannot be defined as a singular, uniform character,rather they create a spectrum of diversity throughout the field. This diversity enables the field to balance thecreativity and analytical skills which are necessary for successful engineering.In a similar manner, students come from diverse backgrounds. Each student has
between high school and college, often in a career or in the military.The course summaries for the four courses in question are shown below in Figures 1-4.Figure 1. MECH 310 Course DescriptionFigure 2. MECH 311 Course Description © American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 2020 ASEE Annual Conference and ExpositionFigure 3. MECH 340 Course DescriptionFigure 4. MECH 415 Course DescriptionImportantly, the authors all kept the number of homework problems assigned over the entiresemester very nearly the same, regardless of homework frequency. Weekly homeworkassignments would have three or four problems each, while daily homework assignments wouldonly have one. This results in roughly the same
enter with only the basiccourses in statics, materials, and strengths. Suddenly, students must learn in one semester how todesign a complex engineering solution which may involve load determination, componentdesign, power transmission, shafts, gears, bearings, couplers, fatigue, etc. The apt description forsuch a combination is machine and quite often it is known as Machine Design. For the textbook,the instructor utilizes the tenth edition of Shigley’s [1]. With four units, the course model consistsof both lectures and activities. There are three one-hour lectures and one two-hour activity everyweek. While the lectures are traditional in nature, the activity time present a special opportunityto support the course curriculum and enhance the
real engineering problems and the mathematical concepts andtheorems learned in classes (Laplace transform, transfer functions, finite difference methods, forexample). Student feedback on these projects is positive.1 Introduction Mechanical engineering students usually complete Calculus I and II, Multivariate Calculus,Linear Algebra and Differential Equations in four or five semesters. All these mathematicalcourses are required in the program curriculum. Primary contents that students learn from thesecourses include: (1) differentiation and integration, calculus of one variable and infinite series inCalculus I and II; (2) differential and integral calculus of functions of two or more variables andvector functions in Multivariate Calculus; (3
where he worked on modeling the transient dynamic attributes of Kinetic Energy munitions during initial launch. Afterwards he was selected for the exchange scientist program and spent a summer working for DASA Aerospace in Wedel, Germany 1993. His initial research also made a major contribution to the M1A1 barrel reshape initiative that began in 1995. Shortly afterwards he was selected for a 1 year appointment to the United States Military Academy West Point where he taught Mathematics. Following these accomplishments he worked on the SADARM fire and forget projectile that was finally used in the second gulf war. Since that time, circa 2002, his studies have focused on unmanned systems both air and ground. His team
careers. Two groups/cohorts have beenthrough this approach (of a sequence of courses) so far. The results suggest that the approachmay have better results than working in a senior design project without the previousexperience/knowledge gained through the approach presented in this paper. Results from thesetwo groups/cohorts also suggest that the interest the project generates in the students is a keyfactor for the overall goal of the approach.IntroductionIn 2008, using data collected by the National Survey of Student Engagement, George Kuh [1]examined several educational practices thought to be high-impact in terms of the benefits theyoffer students. One of the practices highlighted was the capstone or senior project, which utilizesmany of the
thermodynamics problem requiring transfer of mathematicalconcepts before having their prior knowledge activated with a relevant prompt. The students thenattempted to solve the initial problem with the hypothesis that provision of the prompt wouldimprove their ability to transfer the required mathematical skills and solve the problem. Thestudents were not given guidance from the instructor during the activity and worked individuallythrough the problems. As an incentive to complete this activity and to allow creativity, studentswere awarded credit for completing the assignment independent of their actual score on the threeproblems involved. Figure 1: Thermodynamics (boundary work) problem statementThe thermodynamics problem chosen as
-Instruction Mode for a Disciplinary Computer Applications CourseIntroductionRecent decades have seen a growing popularity of active-learning and flipped-instruction techniques,the two often combined in a marriage of convenience, if not necessity. The merits and methods of activelearning have been thoroughly studied and are well documented in the literature, to the extent thatsome argue that failure to adopt such techniques is analogous to malpractice in the medical community[1-3]. The other side of that equation however, flipped instruction, has only recently begun to be studiedto the same degree of scope and depth [4-6].This work provides a comparison of two course models for a sophomore, mechanical engineeringcomputer
in 2016. This comprehensiveapproach included four key contents: (1) Teaching fundamental concepts of finite elementanalysis theory, (2) Teaching and demonstrating main FEA skills through a commercial FEAsoftware and implementing them in a homework assignment, (3) facilitating students integrationof the main FEA simulation skills that they have learned through a faculty-guided design project,and (4) Conduct FEA simulation on a design project of a real product. The first part of thisapproach has been discussed in our previous paper [11]. This paper will present the developmentof the faculty-guided team design project (minor design project), its implementation and finallypresent the class survey data analysis.2. Faculty-guided minor design
semester. Analysis of the interviewsconcluded that the implementation of virtual office hours was mutually beneficial to both theinstructors and the students.IntroductionA longitudinal study concluded that interactions between faculty and students outside of lecturesis minimal, a trend that has remained consistent over time [1]. Most interactions betweenstudents and faculty are short, irregular, and are encouraged only by specific concerns [1].Students have to make the initiative to meet with their instructors. Considering these findings, itseems that increasing student participation in office hours is out of the professor’s control.However, there is an alternative that can boost attendance by tackling grievances that studentsand professors have
, deepen their technical skills, acquire relevant, real-world experience, and strengthentheir professional competence. A common method of obtaining these types of outcomes, forinstance, are in the form of student internship positions. Most engineering students target at leastone internship position during their undergraduate tenure, which increases the likelihood ofemployment post-graduation.Others engage in research opportunities as an alternative venue towards nurturing academicdevelopment [5], [6]. Studies reveal that the number of STEM undergraduate students conductingresearch is significantly high given its immediate and long-term benefit [1], [4], [5]. In a surveyconducted by the National Science Foundation (NSF), 83% of its respondents
microcontroller-based systems. It also highlighted the areas that still needfurther attention by the instructors.1. IntroductionMechatronics is the synergistic integration of mechanical engineering with electronics andintelligent computer control in the design and manufacturing of industrial products andprocesses [1]. It integrates sensors, actuators, signal conditioning, power electronics, decisionand control algorithms, and computer hardware and software to manage complexity andcommunication in engineered systems. Mechatronics continues to play an increasing andexpanding role in modern industry and is instrumental in their attempts to apply automation toindustrial processes, and even in attempts to make the processes autonomous. Mechanicalengineering
problems to be both motivating and instructionally effective. This redesigned approachto the FE review course has been used in consecutive semesters, with encouraging results, and iscurrently being incorporated in other engineering and computer science courses.1. IntroductionThe administration of the Fundamentals of Engineering exam transitioned from paper-based tocomputer-based testing (CBT) in January 2014. In the Department of Mechanical Engineering atthe University of Idaho, previous to the transition to CBT, we offered an FE review coursegeared towards the paper-based exam, which finished the week before the exam was offered.After the switch to the CBT, we continued to offer the FE review course in this format. Wefound that the student pass
, internships, and social interaction with faculty and their peers as positive factorsthat helped them make their decisions.Introduction Nationally the STEM industries in the United States face a looming retirement cliff asskilled baby boomers begin to retire and leave the workforce [1]. With the continuous increasein demand for the STEM jobs, it requires highly qualified STEM professionals to fill thosepositions to maintain its competitive edge. Improvements in student retention and graduationrates by providing them with a robust college STEM education are essential to meet the demandsof regional and national employers. The Mechanical Engineering (ME) S-STEM Scholarship Program in our institution wasestablished to provide enhanced
essentialcomponent of the student outcomes that must be assessed and evaluate and result be used as aninput for continuous improvement of engineering programs [1]. In most undergraduate engineeringcourses, students are assigned to research or design projects. These typically include the capstonedesign course(s) and some other upper division courses in the program. In large classes, studentsare either encouraged or required to complete projects in groups consisting of several teammembers.Formation of design teams and assigning grades to individual team member is a challenging taskfor the instructor. Some instructors have had students take personality tests to help place studentsinto balanced groups [2]. In one study the design formation methodologies were
and mechanical engineering technology are noexception.This paper aims to 1) determine the variability in perceptions of tenure requirements among bothassistant and associate professors in mechanical engineering and mechanical engineeringtechnology programs and 2) identify perceived impediments for faculty seeking to obtain tenure.Similar surveys were sent to assistant and associate professors in the same programs forreporting perceptions of tenure requirements and to identify the impediments they faced towardstheir tenure process. The motivation for this research is to bring to the surface perceptions andconcerns assistant professors have in obtaining tenure, and to identify if these concerns werealso true to already tenured faculty.Faculty
modules, and theproject implementation details so that other institutions can either replicate or adapt to their needs.IntroductionThe landscape of engineering is continuously evolving. To tackle the rapidly changing needs ofthe broad engineering field, industries are looking for graduates with an ability to think at a systemslevel while at the same time possessing the hands-on hardware and software skills necessary tointerface at the sub-system level. Extant literature supports that both engineering faculty andstudents desire hands-on, system-level projects early on in an engineering curriculum (e.g. [1] [2]).Additional literature supports that training engineers in design-based thinking skills is useful inbuilding and motivating core technical
fluctuation is specifically related to an extremeexpansion in the fields of science and technology. The growing global market competition, thesubsequent restructuring of industry, the visible transformation from defense to civilian work, theutilization of new materials and biological processes, and the explosion of informationtechnology (both as part of the engineering process and as part of its product) has dramaticallyand irreversibly altered how mechanical engineers operate [1]. In the midst of these evolvingtimes, it has become noticeably apparent that there is a considerable disconnect between whatindustries need from the matriculated students they hire and what undergraduate mechanicalengineering education actually provides [2]. The primary
bemisinterpreted by students.Introduction:It is now 2020 and the students in the typical engineering classroom are different from those of 20,or 40 years ago. Some instructors were students 20 or 40 years ago, and expect students to behavelike they did. Likewise, they may believe the instructor can behave like they did years ago. Whilesome instructors are aware of the differences between then and now, it appears some would benefitfrom recognizing things have changed. Engineering classes may be some of the last to see changesthat are more widespread in other University programs.The two significant changes are: (1) the instructor isn’t the dominant controlling force in theclassroom and (2) our society has become less civil. Students are more likely to
-FSU College of Engineering and itis offered every semester. The class is delivered with a weekly 50 minutes lecture and a weeklylab of 2 hours and 45 minutes. For the labs, the class is divided into smaller sections of typically20 students each and working in groups of 2. There is a main instructor for the class and lab withan additional teaching assistant (TA) for each lab section.The semester-long class is divided into 2 main parts. The first half of the semester introducesstudents to C programming and the second half focuses on microcontroller programming,sensors, and actuators. Table 1 summarizes the topics covered in the class. Each laboratorycontains a set of activities that students are expected to complete during the lab and a set
data that we hope can be used to motivate ourselves and our departments to meet ourstudents where they are and improve success for all students. This project informed us on who isleaving our programs, and now we want to learn more about why and begin to strategize abouthow we can better serve students at a course, department, and School level.IntroductionFor decades, studies have called for attention to recruiting and retaining a diverse studentpopulation in STEM fields [1, 2]. These studies have documented the achievement gap forunder-represented minorities (URM) and first-generation college students [3-5]. Within theEngineering field, recruiting and graduating a diverse student body has been a focus for manyyears, as the demand for engineers
planning module may play an importantrole in character development for engineers that goes beyond case studies.IntroductionThis paper describes a classroom module designed to increase engineering student skills inethics. Traditional engineering ethics education has focused on case studies of past engineeringdisasters [1].In the business discipline an alternative viewpoint on ethics education has been articulated byMary Gentile [2]. She argues that students often have a strong ability to identify an ethicalchallenge, but they may not have the skills needed to articulate it in a professional context. Forengineering students, this implies that they can easily identify that they should not replicate pastdisasters by designing a bad bridge or flawed
Education, 2020 Enhancing Middle/High School Female Students Self-Confidence and Motivation in Pursuing STEM Careers through Increasing Diversity in Engineering And Labor-force (IDEAL) Outreach Summer ProgramIntroductionExperts anticipate that discoveries in engineering, science, and technology fields will drive hugeadvancements in human society in the coming decades. Researchers and economists predictaccelerating job-growth in these fields as well [1]. For example, the United States Department ofCommerce (USDC) has already found that in the first decade of the 21st century the number ofemployment opportunities in these areas grew at a rate three times faster than in other fields [2].These new
discuss the efficacy of eachstrategy, the quantity of research supporting each strategy, and the practicality of implementingeach strategy. They conclude that the most effective strategy to increase student performance isadministration of practice tests, and this is supported by other analysis [1]. Notwithstanding theimportance of practice exams for student learning, this study will focus on strategies that exploitcomputer technology and the internet. Due to the common trend of adoption of computertechnology, this seems like an interesting arena to explore. Accordingly, the current work chose tofocus on three strategies that have been gaining in popularity in the modern engineeringclassrooms: guided notes, peer discussion, and gamification. The
qualitative and quantitative methods to evaluate student learningin Japanese engineering design education.Introduction - Who is an engineer? Today and futureThe engineering educational situation in Japan is quite unique. Japan has a disproportionately largepost graduate student body pursuing natural science and engineering as compared to social sciencesand humanities. This is uncommon in other countries, such as US, Germany, France, UK, and SouthKorea [1]. In addition to an extremely large number of other technical workers, Japan has anestimated 400,000 engineering researchers leading the field through technology development asshown in Fig.1. This number is close to the total number of doctors and dentists in Japan. Ohashigives an estimate of
addition, a meeting is held with the advisory board to present them the results andto ask them for feedback and suggestions to obtain better results the following cycle. Thiscontinuous improvement cycle has been highly valuable in national and internationalaccreditation processes of academic engineering programs.This work provides a framework for universities in regions where accreditation programs arestarting and can help the institutions prepare for international accreditation processes such asthose demanded by ABET.IntroductionA common concern among education institutions at any level is to ensure that the educationprocesses are delivered with the highest quality standards [1]. This is a priority all over the worldand an evidence of this is
undergraduate world where engineersare often working in groups consisting of peers of different levels of age, knowledge andexperience [1]. Therefore, exposing students to a cross-cohort project would introduce them to anenvironment more similar to what they would experience in the future. This type of projects, hashad positive impact on students’ learning by providing the opportunity for them to see theapplication of theoretical course concepts through design and analysis of engineering systems [2].Literature Review: Current research has shown that multidisciplinary group projects inengineering education is beneficial to students since it better reflects the standard practice inindustry [3, 4]. Though this paper is discussing an interdisciplinary
improved their understanding of that topic. Lessons learned during theprocess and ideas for future work are also presented.IntroductionEngineering programs carefully construct their curriculum so students build upon theirpreviously learned knowledge as they advance in their field of study. By the junior-year, thereare often core courses that have 3 or more prerequisites. A recurring problem for faculty isstudents lacking a necessary level of knowledge from a prerequisite course. Assuming studentshave successfully passed the prerequisite courses, there are generally two reasons a student lacksmastery in the prerequisite knowledge: 1. They did not originally master the subject manner but earned a grade high enough to continue on to the
minimize time spent taking notes in class and to maximize the time spent listening to thelecture and participating in classroom discussions.A total of 101 students were participants in the study, and informed consent forms wereobtained. Table 1 summarizes some of the pertinent characteristics of the two groups. AStudents' t-test was performed on the data, and the resulting p-values indicate that the two groupswere statistically the same with respect to these characteristics.Table 1. Characteristics of the Control and Test Groups Used in the Study. Control Group Test Group Difference p-value (Mean ± SD) (Mean ± SD) Total Number 46
language, which is usuallyEnglish.For these reasons we decided to develop a 3-phase multi subject didactical method, based on thewell known methodology of project based learning (PBL), see Figure 1.The main idea is to define engineering tasks according to the level of education and to equip thestudents with the necessary information and skills to solve them. This includes education inspecial technical subjects, processing of electronic data and writing of documentation andreports, project work and project management, preparing of power point presentations andpractice in English.During the first phase – in the second and third semester of the degree program – we mainlyconcentrate on the theoretical and language education. We do not require or