Engineering Education, 2021 Effects of Different Team Formation Strategies on Performance in an Undergraduate Introductory Mechanical Engineering CourseAbstractDuring the spring semester of 2020, four different team formation strategies were employed toassign student working groups in four otherwise identical sections of an undergraduateintroductory mechanical engineering course. The four team formation strategies were 1)random, 2) by merit, with teams based on similar performance on previous exams, 3) student-selected, and 4) geographical proximity of student housing. Students were supposed to completethree team assignments during the semester, but due to COVID-19, they completed only oneteam assignment before being sent home. The
dynamics), a required course for students majoring inbioengineering, civil engineering and environmental engineering at FGCU. Success in this courseis critical to success in follow-up mechanics courses and upper-level engineering courses. Datahas been collected on students’ performance on homework, quizzes and exams, and on thestudents’ thoughts on learning and course delivery. Thus far, it has been concluded that the use oftraditional hand-written homework, frequent assessment via quizzes [1], or the Pearson MasteringEngineering [2] software for formative assessment did not have a significant impact on students’performance on exams. It was also observed that neither traditional nor online homework scorescorrelated well with exam scores; however
introductory engineering courses at Missouri S&T wereoffered as face-to-face courses, either in a traditional or flipped format, which relied extensivelyupon student-student and instructor-student interactions. During the recent pandemic, manyinstructors had to rapidly transform their face-to-face classes due to campus closures.Thistransition from in-person to online teaching modality raised challenges for both instructors andstudents. A survey conducted at Missouri S&T revealed that the main complaint expressed bystudents, after switching to the online settings, was the lack of interactions either betweeninstructors and students or between students themselves. These findings align with other reportedstudies [1] on the impact of the recent
parallel to the particle F = ma by adding, for planarmotion, for example, the equation M = J, where M is the net moment, J is the mass moment ofinertia, and is the angular acceleration. One casualty of the process of lumping distributedeffects is that students have a hard time developing a sense that the location of mass matters, asdoes the nature of distribution of forces. The distribution of mass manifests in J, but itscomputation is separated from balance of moment and is often just extracted from a table.The Mechanics ProjectTextbooks and most traditional learning environments have yet to embrace what is known aboutstudent learning [1]. The way information is organized in the traditional layout promotesgrouping problems based on the special
Dynamics Concept Inventory (DCI) – The Past, Present, and FutureAbstractThe Dynamics Concept Inventory (DCI) was developed over 15 years ago as a tool forinstructors teaching Dynamics to assess their students’ gains in conceptual understanding ofthe material. Since its initial release, there have been hundreds of downloads of theinstrument, and the initial papers presenting the instrument have been referenced over 100times. In this paper, we will 1) present a brief history of the development of the DCI, 2)evaluate the ways it has been used since its release with the hope of encouraging moreengineering faculty members to use it, 3) summarize results from those who have used it, and4) present plans for future development and distribution.History of
deeply in the future through the addition of personal interviews with the students: Is theconnection between the students’ perceived value of the content a stronger influence on theirmotivation than the instructional methods employed?I. IntroductionAs our knowledge of how students learn expands, so does the use of more active learningexercises in our classrooms, because as Nie and Lau [1] state, “learning is not passivelyreceiving knowledge, but an active process of constructing meaningful representations ofknowledge.” We must address students’ misconceptions [2], tap into their existing knowledge,and motivate them to actively engage in their learning. We recognize different learning modes[3] and the importance of learning flexibility [4] [5]. A
the course structure. This paperdescribes the details of the course design and document some of the outcomes.IntroductionWe have embarked on an effort to change the educational outcomes of engineering students bychanging how we teach the foundational engineering courses. We call the effort The MechanicsProject because, at least initially, the focus has been on the engineering mechanics courses(Statics, Dynamics, and Deformable Solids). The Mechanics Project was created at a large R1university in the southwest, and although it was certainly not the first effort in higher educationto redesign the fundamental mechanics courses [1] – [6], it has created long term impacts on bothstudent learning and subsequent course content.The decision to focus
, learning environment, andacademic concern. The TA section includes an overall rating for the teaching assistant (TA). Atthe end of each section, a “Comments/Suggestions” box is included, where the students areencouraged to write their comments. These surveys are administered typically at 1/3 (Week 5)and 2/3 (Week 10) of the semester.Based on the findings of each survey, the instructor makes a brief presentation during class,where the most frequent comments/issues are discussed along with actions to address them. Thethird survey further serves as a measure of the efficiency of the adopted actions from the secondsurvey. The fourth survey is administered by the university typically during Week 14 of thesemester and serves as a final assessment
delivered in light of the vast array of learningstyles of the students. In [1], Singh et. al. gave the index of learning style (ILS) survey [2] that isbased on the Felder Silverman learning style model [3] to the 2015 dynamics class at theUniversity of Calgary. After data analysis concluded that students would benefit from a morebalanced approach to learning and that active learning opportunities should be regularly beprovided to students. In fact, these results were as expected after similar results such as those in[4] had previously been obtained elsewhere. As a result of the study [1] itself, lecturedemonstrations were designed, and lectures were delivered in a more engaging and interactivemanner. Although these methods have improved the
drawupon the skills they learn in Statics throughout their engineering education. Students with astrong understanding of statics will likely have an easier time with related and more challengingconcepts in subsequent courses. Specifically, Statics has been shown to be an effective predictorof how students will perform in Dynamics [1], and instructors in Capstone Design courses oftenstate that lacking an understanding of statics concepts hinders achievement in design [2]. It istherefore worthwhile to examine common teaching practices in Statics and to developinstructional methods that will enable students to confidently apply the skills they learn in Staticsto a wide variety of engineering problems.In many courses – Statics as well as others – it
and opportunities for improvement, we highlighttargets for future research. The paper concludes by laying a groundwork for future inquiry in thecontext of this Statics study abroad program.Why Statics? Statics acts as a critical, core course for a number of engineering disciplines both withinPUWL curricula and more broadly among engineering institutions [1]. Some describe Statics as a‘gatekeeper’ course, a bottleneck in student’s curricular pathways that can make-or-break theirgraduation timeline, potentially deterring students from continuing their engineering studies in theprocess [2]. Statics acts as a curricular lynchpin, and access to Statics courses can drasticallyinfluence students’ enrollment decisions during their early years
critical to success in follow-up mechanics courses andupper-level engineering courses. Data has been collected on students’ performance onhomework, quizzes and exams, and on the students’ thoughts on learning and course delivery.Thus far, we have concluded that the use of traditional hand-written homework, frequentassessment via quizzes [1], or the Pearson Mastering Engineering [2] software for formativeassessment did not have a significant impact on students’ performance on exams. It was alsoobserved that neither traditional nor online homework scores correlated well with exam scores;however, in-class quizzes did correlate with final exam scores. More recently, using theMastering Engineering Online system, specifically the inclusion of the
years, this paper will begin to identify problematic conceptsand common errors students have about the course concepts.BackgroundEngineering knowledge and expertise is often defined as the ability to solve complex and ill-structured problems. In order to prepare engineering students for this reality, engineering coursesare often designed with embedded problem-solving activities regardless of discipline oracademic level. For disciplines such as mechanical, biomedical, civil, aerospace and oceanengineering, knowledge of mechanics concepts is fundamental. However, years of research havedemonstrated that students continue to experience difficulties understanding these concepts at theconceptual level [1-3]. Conceptual change researchers have
of theapparatus and core concepts are analyzed using a reflective journaling protocol that is evaluatedby a team of experts in mechanical engineering. Second, students provide detailed fieldethnographic notes while engaging with the apparatus and the lab work itself. Third, studentwork from this semester is being compared to previous years’ evaluations that were undertakenwithout the implementation of this novel approach.Introduction Statics is one of the very fundamental engineering mechanics courses taken by studentsfor many engineering programs [1-5]. At its core, statics is a theoretical course that is attemptingto mimic ideal real-world scenarios. At the heart of this work, lies the desire to make these idealscenarios into
shift toward more active learning practices in highereducation [1]. Active learning methodologies can provide students with opportunities to developthe skills needed by graduates in the 21st century. These skills include learning and innovationskills such as critical thinking, problem solving, and life and career skills such as collaboration[2]. Through engagement in firsthand learning experiences, students begin to figure things outfor themselves, develop confidence in their analytical abilities, learn to connect with the worldaround them, and discover how to use their innate curiosity to uncover the power of their ownlearning abilities [3].The early core engineering science courses set the foundational knowledge on which futurecontent is
mechanics classes.Dr. Sara L Arena, Virginia Tech Sara L. Arena is a Collegiate Assistant Professor of Biomedical Engineering and Mechanics (BEAM) at Virginia Tech (VT), where she has been teaching since 2017. Prior to this position, Sara was an Assistant Professor of Exercise Science at High Point University (2013-2017). The BEAM Department at Virginia Tech offers two undergraduate programs: (1) Engineering Science and Mechanics and (2) Biomedical Engineering. Sara teaches foundational courses and upper-level technical electives in biomechanics of human movement for both programs. In her current role, Sara has developed an interest in scholarship of teaching and learning, specifically related to the use of groups
framework, ConcepTests are typicallyqualitative and require no or very minimal numerical calculation, although they may requiremental imagination of the development of key equations. Also, some ConcepTests are intendedfor summative assessment and should follow specific guidelines; others may be open-ended andintended to provoke debate and force students to verbalize and justify their assumptions whenanswering questions (Beatty et al. 2006).Since the workshop, the team has had virtual meetings every 1-2 months to discuss conceptquestion development and to review progress. A systematic review process was set up toprovide feedback on all of the different questions, and to plan and manage initial student testingconducted at three different institutions
research interest include, Deformation & Failure Mecha- nisms, Materials Science, Fracture Mechanics, Process-Structure-Property Relationships, Finite Element Stress Analysis Modeling, Failure Analysis, ASME BPV Code Sec VIII Div. 1 &2, API 579/ASME FFS- 1 Code, Materials Testing and Engineering Education. Professionally registered engineer in the State of Texas (PE).Dr. Matilda (Tillie) Wilson McVay, Texas A&M University Associate Professor of Instruction, J. Mike Walker ’66 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Texas A&M University from 2006 - present (2020) Undergraduate Program Director, Department of Mechanical Engineering, from January 2017 - 2019 Lecturer, Department of Aerospace Engineering
during the course toconstruct and program a tensile tester. This tensile tester is then used to conduct tests to determinemechanics propertiesCourses Utilizing Tensile-Tester Project The tensile tester project has been implemented into two different courses. The first course isStatics and Mechanics of Materials. This is a sophomore-level course required for students in allengineering disciplines. The second course is Applied Engineering Mechanics, a sophomore-levelcourse part of the controls and systems engineering technology program. Table 1 outlines thetopics covered in each class. Table 1. Course Topics in Approximate Order Introduced Statics and Mechanics Applied Mechanics of
. The exam results and course evaluationwill be compared with the past three semesters (without hands-on learning) to measureimprovement in passing rate.IntroductionMotivationEngineering Dynamics is one of the fundamental courses that most engineering students have totake in sophomore year. This course serves as a gatekeeper for several upper-level courses suchas Intro to Fluid Mechanics, Intro to Environmental Engineering, Mechanism and Dynamics ofMachines courses. Student needs to develop an in-depth analytical skill of a dynamic system tosucceed in these upper-level courses. Students find the Dynamics course very challenging andoften define it as the hardest course [1]- [3]. In Dynamics, students have to deal with theories andproblems of
applications of that theory. Additionally, it gives the opportunity to learn skills in design,manufacturing, electronics, controls, and prototyping. This study looks at a mechanics of materialscourse project that has the students build a tensile-testing device from course-supplied kit toevaluate mechanical properties. The project detailed in this paper is a redesigned and scaled-downversion of a project previously used for this course [1]. With the restrictions from COVID, thepreviously group-based project had to be revamped into an individual based project. Despite thischange, this project still requires the students to combine knowledge from other areas, includingcircuits, controls, and mechanics of materials. They learn to build a microcontroller
instructor’sfeedback on the quality of their writing, not just the work’s technical content.1. IntroductionEngineering professions require a substantial amount of writing, whether in industry oracademia. Educators have done a significant amount of research on how to better prepareengineering students for the kind and amount of writing demanded by professional practice [1-4].In fact, the importance and value of effective writing communication skills for engineers hasbeen emphasized by both the National Academy of Engineering [5] and ABET [6].Among the benefits of teaching effective writing in engineering courses are allowing the studentsto develop and use critical thinking and assessing students’ level of understanding of the subjectmatter. Moreover, the
upon the concepts introduced in earlier courses utilizing tools such as the FBD(while ideally enhancing their engineering judgment simultaneously) until their Capstone course,in which the tools, concepts, knowledge and judgment are all employed in the service of solvingan open-ended problem. Gainsburg 1 presents engineering judgment as the integration of theoryand practicality, which implies that incorporating good engineering judgment requires a strongfoundational understanding of the theory, significant practical experience and being able toconnect the two in order to address an engineering problem. From an instructor’s perspective, itcan be challenging to present a new topic to students, whether in a Statics class or in Capstone,where there
extend the knowledge developed in specific courses in the core curriculum to the more complex, authentic problems and projects they face as professionals. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021 Work-in-Progress: Computer Simulations to Deliver Inquiry-Based Laboratory Activities in MechanicsIntroductionAlthough students can often use algorithmic substitution and pattern matching to solvemechanics problems, many do not understand the underlying principles [1], [2]. It is critical thatstudents develop a strong conceptual understanding of mechanics to transfer this knowledge tonew types of problems and for follow-on courses [3], [4]. To help
materialThe proof of concept is being explored using Area Moments of Inertia and Products of Inertia.This paper presents the initial feedback from students and instructor and plans for the future.Introduction:The idea that hands-on models can improve learning is not new: Felder and Silverman famouslyincluded hands-on models as an example of an active teaching.[1] The notion that 3D printingcan make such opportunities more available is not new either.[2] As makerspaces become regularon-campus tools for students, educators have been trying to figure out how to bring thatcapability into the classroom.[3,4]I work principally with Statics in the Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department at NCState University where my goal has been to increase the
reinforce students’ interest,knowledge, and engineering judgment. The use of multi-level web-based games allows studentsto enter the instruction at the appropriate level. Students can select additional games in weakareas and skip levels if they are familiar with the topic. Additionally, students can play andreceive instruction on their own schedule and at their own pace. Finally, games (instruction) canbe repeated and reviewed if students need repetition to grasp and retain instruction (1). Theimpact of web-based games on the engineering and mechanics of materials learning environmenthas been previously reported in the literature including Crown (2), Lumsdaine (3), and Philpot et.Al.(4,5). However, the full capacity of web-based games is still
must usuallyearn a C- grade (or better) in order to take the subsequent courses. However, having a C- in thiscourse means that students are leaving this prerequisite course with ability to solve the givenexercises, but often they do not have the ability to answer a simple quantitatively question aboutthe fundamental concept in this course. We believe that by implementing an effective assessmenttool we will measure the effectiveness of the newly developed hybrid course. We plan to measurethe effectiveness of the hybrid course by:1. Integrating previously developed and tested Concept Inventory test specifically for Staticsthroughout the course into its weekly modules.2. Multiple choice questions drawn from Fundamentals of Engineering Exam and
, M.S. and Ph.D.statics, dynamics and mechanics of materials(Fig.1) can be revised to be more College of Engineeringcomputer-based and to include some Fintite Elemets Method Towards Graduationmultiscale modules in concepts, problemsand exercises6-11. Perhaps the main Mechanics of
beams in mechanics of ma-terials. They include the following:1-11 (a) method of double integration (with or without the useof singularity functions), (b) method of superposition, (c) method using moment-area theorems,(d) method using Castigliano’s theorem, (e) conjugate beam method, and ( f ) method using gen-eral formulas. Naturally, there are advantages and disadvantages in using any of the above meth-ods. By and large, the method of double integration is a frequently used method in determiningslopes and deflections, as well as statically indeterminate reactions at supports, of beams. With-out use of singularity functions, the method of double integration has an advantage of needing aprerequisite in mathematics only up to simple calculus
Management, and International Journal of Electronic Business. Page 12.1566.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2007 Using Technology to Enhance the Traditional LectureAbstract The advancement of information technology has provided faculty with manyopportunities to adopt and incorporate it into traditional classroom teaching. However, the newtechnology is not always better. For many topics, the best strategy is still the traditional chalk-and-talk lecture. There are three critical requirements that must be met before new technology isadopted on a large scale. 1. The new technology should be able to facilitate