. She graduated cum laude from the University of Florida with a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering. Captain Welsh earned her M.S. in Systems Engineering from the Air Force Institute of Technology at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Her research interests include concept based learning and design of autonomous systems.Dr. Lorena S. Grundy, Tufts University Lorena Grundy is an ASEE eFellows postdoctoral fellow at Tufts University, where she works with Milo Koretsky to study chemical engineering education. She received her BSE from Princeton in 2017 and PhD from UC Berkeley in 2022, both in chemical engineering.Dr. Brian P. Self, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Brian Self obtained his B.S. and
S - Incorrect sign on one or more components Resolve a vector F - Incorrect value of one or more components Add vectors N/A Q - Vector sketched in quadrant inconsistent with vector expression Sketch a vector A - Angle indicated on sketch inconsistent with calculated angleIn problem 2, students were asked to determine the moment of each force about a given point,then find the magnitude and
for theircontributions to this study's assessment components.This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.2141984. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NationalScience Foundation.10. References[1] A. Vidak, I. Movre Šapić, and V. Mešić, "An augmented reality approach to learning about the force of gravity," Physics Education, vol. 56, 2021, doi: 10.1088/1361-6552/ac21a3.[2] R. A. Serway and J. W. Jewett, Physics for Scientists and Engineers, 10 ed. Cengage Learning, 2019, p. 1162.[3] A. Bedford and W. Fowler, Engineering Mechanics: Statics, 6th ed. Upper Saddle
also be explored.AcknowledgementsSupport for this work was provided by the National Science Foundation under Award No.2301341. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this materialare those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation. Research work was conducted under institutional IRB protocols, IRB#1965654. Theauthors would also like to thank Dr. Jenni Buckley for providing copies of her EngineeringStatics class notes for use in this work.References1. ABET, “Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs, 2020 – 2021 | ABET,” ABET, 2021. https://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accrediting-engineering- programs-2020-2021
errors, in turn, resulted inusers obtaining inaccurate responses. Examples of successful and unsuccessful problem solutionsare included below. Full solutions from ChatGPT are included in Appendix B.• Example problems for which ChatGPT provided correct responses: o Statics ➢ The bending moment on a beam is given by 𝑀 = −4𝑥 3 + 3𝑥 2 − 23𝑥 + 5 N.m, calculate the shear force at 𝑥 = 3 m. (Correct Answer: V = 113 N; ChatGPT answer: 113 units [whatever the units of the bending moment are]) o Dynamics ➢ The position of a particle is given by 𝑠[𝑡] = 𝑡 3 − 12𝑡 2 + 44𝑡 + 11 m, calculate the acceleration value at 𝑡 = 5 s. (Correct Answer: a = 6 m/s2; ChatGPT answer: acceleration at t=5s
those connections and find therelevant information themselves. The points in which students are asked to identify theirquestions will remain, but there will be fewer times when the class reassembles as a whole.However, students are welcome to discuss with other groups, and the lab instructor(s) will becirculating to address any extreme misdirection.As a deliverable, students write a short memo with their recommendation for the design briefwith justification. They must include their experimental data in that justification and clearlyexplain any assumptions they made. Students must also turn in their documentation from the labperiod with the initial brief, the prompting questions, and their plan. This ensures students workmethodically to create a
anddevelopment. Prentice-Hall.[2] Letina, A. (2015). Application of Traditional and Alternative Assessment in Science andSocial Studies Teaching. Croatian Journal Educational / Hrvatski Casopis Za Odgoj I[3] Chrysochoou M, Zaghi AE, Syharat CM (2022) Reframing neurodiversity in engineeringeducation. Front. Educ. 7:995865. DOI: 10.3389/feduc.2022.995865[4] Armstrong, T. (2012). First, Discover Their Strengths. Educational Leadership, 70(2), 10.[5] Daniels, S., & Freeman, M. (2018). Gifted dyslexics: MIND-strengths, visual thinking, andcreativity. In S. B. Kaufman (Ed.), Twice exceptional: Supporting and educating bright andcreative students with learning difficulties, Oxford University Press (pp. 266-277).[6] von Károlyi, C. (2001). Visual–spatial
isolated testinglocation and 2) a grade/cash incentive to encourage active participation is needed. Finally, since most concept inventories include multiple questions that test the same concept, weshould include analysis of these other problems to investigate these issues more fully. However, theseresults are representative of student’s results. More analyses of student results on problems testing thesame concept are part of future work.Bibliography[1] D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, “Force concept inventory,” Phys Teach, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 141–158, 1992, doi: 10.1119/1.2343497.[2] D. Hestenes and I. Halloun, “Interpreting the FCI:A Response,” The Physics Teacher, vol. 33. pp. 502–506, 1995.[3] P. S. Steif
to visualize 2x2 and 3x3 matrices by Christian Otto Mohr in thelate 1800’s, Mohr’s circle has since become a foundational, visual tool for mechanics studentsworking to understand the stresses at play at derived points in materials [1]. Undergraduateengineering students are commonly introduced to Mohr’s circle in their Mechanics of Materialsclass as an analytical tool included in the lessons on stress transformations. The basic idea behindMohr’s circle is that normal and shear stresses on a plane within a material depend on theorientation of that plane [2]. Through graphical representation, Mohr’s circle simplifies theprocess of reorienting a given planar section of material to obtain the normal and shear stresses atthe new orientation. It
completed more variety of StaticViewproblems, more specific CAD models used as well as the timing on when they are introduced toyield more meaningful results.References[1] Steif, P. S., & Dollar, A. (2004, January). Reinventing engineering statics to address theconceptual difficulties of students. In ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress andExposition (Vol. 47233, pp. 47-52).[2] Wingate, K. A., Ferri, A. A., & Feigh, K. M. (2018, June). The impact of the physics, statics,and mechanics sequence on student retention and performance in mechanical engineering. In2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition.[3] Steif, P. S., & Dollar, A. (2005). Reinventing the teaching of statics. International Journal ofEngineering Education
acknowledge the contributions of the faculty and laboratorytechnicians from the United States Military Academy who supported this study especially Mr.Corey Smith, Mr. Matthew Stanton, and Ms. Gabriella Santiago. The authors also greatlyappreciate the support of Braeden Germundson and Tyler Esola in testing the samples andrecording the videos. The views expressed in this work are those of the authors and do notnecessarily reflect the official policy or position of the United States Military Academy,Department of the Army, DoD, or U.S. Government.References[1] S. Freeman et al., “Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics,” Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, vol. 111, no. 23, pp. 8410–8415, Jun. 2014
; Exposition, 2018. [9] C.-W. Lee, A. Schleife, D. R. Trinkle, J. A. Krogstad, R. Maass, P. Bellon, J. K. Shang, C. Leal, M. West, T. Bretl, G. L. Herman, and S. Tang, “Impact of computational curricular reform on non-participating undergraduate courses: Student and faculty perspective,” in 2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2019.[10] J. Wagemann, F. Fierli, S. Mantovani, S. Siemen, B. Seeger, and J. Bendix, “Five guiding principles to make Jupyter notebooks fit for earth observation data education,” Remote Sensing, vol. 14, no. 14, 2022.[11] M. West, G. L. Herman, and C. Zilles, “PrairieLearn: Mastery-based online problem solving with adaptive scoring and recommendations driven by machine learning,” in 2015 ASEE Annual
(MSU). She was born and raised in Verona, Italy and received her B.S. and M.S. in Civil Engineering from the University of Trento, Italy. S ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Paper or Silicon: Assessing Student Understanding in a Computer-based Testing Environment using PrairieLearnAbstractComputer-based testing is a powerful tool for scaling exams in large lecture classes. Thedecision to adopt computer-based testing is typically framed as a tradeoff in terms of time; timesaved by auto-grading is reallocated as time spent developing problem pools, but with significanttime savings. This paper seeks to examine the tradeoff in terms of accuracy in measuring
possible that many students can complete a coursesuch as Statics by performing operations but without ever drawing corresponding diagrams, or, in thecases when students do draw diagrams, it is unlikely that they draw them to accurate geometrical scaleunless explicitly prompted.This raises questions such as if creation and interpretation of accurate figures is a necessary part ofunderstanding vector operations, and if such skills enhance, or at least correlate with, overall problem-solving performance. One approach to introduce graphical reasoning is via concept questions, in whichstudents can identify from a given set of options which diagram(s) accurately represent a vector resultantor other characteristic. Another approach, as is explored in
Strategies and Achievement in Introductory Biology,” CBE—Life Sciences Education, vol. 16, no. 2. American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB), p. ar30, Jun. 2017. doi: 10.1187/cbe.16-09-0269.[5] J. E. Jacobs and S. G. Paris, “Children’s Metacognition About Reading: issues in Definition, Measurement, and Instruction,” Educational Psychologist, vol. 22, no. 3–4. Informa UK Limited, pp. 255–278, Jun. 01, 1987. doi: 10.1080/00461520.1987.9653052.[6] J. D. Stanton, A. J. Sebesta, and J. Dunlosky, “Fostering Metacognition to Support Student Learning and Performance,” CBE—Life Sciences Education, vol. 20, no. 2. American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB), p. fe3, Jun. 2021. doi: 10.1187/cbe.20-12-0289.[7] B. S. Bloom
. Sci. Teach., vol. 44, no. 10, pp. 1436–1460, 2007.[2] J. Filgona, F. Jacob, S. John, and D. M. Gwany, “Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Students’ Academic Achievement: a Theoretical Overview,” J. Glob. Res. Educ. Soc. Sci., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 14–44, 2020.[3] Sergeyev and N. Alaraje, “Effectiveness of traditional, blended and on-line teaching of electrical machinery course,” ASEE Annu. Conf. Expo. Conf. Proc., vol. 122nd ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition: Making Value for Society, no. 122nd ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition: Making Value for Society, 2015.[4] J. Baughman, L. Hassall, and X. Xu, “Comparison of student team dynamics between nonflipped and flipped versions of a large-enrollment sophomore
,” IEEE Glob. Eng. Educ. Conf. EDUCON,vol. 2018-April, pp. 364–368, 2018.[2] J. L. Docktor and J. P. Mestre, “Synthesis of discipline-based education research inphysics,” Phys. Rev. Spec. Top. - Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1–58, 2014.[3] B. Bridgeman, “A Comparison of Quantitative Questions in Open-Ended and Multiple-Choice Formats Author ( s ): Brent Bridgeman Published by : National Council on Measurementin Education Stable URL : http://www.jstor.com/stable/1435138 REFERENCES Linkedreferences are av,” vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 253–271, 1992.[4] P. S. Steif and J. A. Dantzler, “A statics concept inventory: Development and psychometricanalysis,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 94, no. 4, pp. 363–371, 2005.[5] G. L. Gray, F. Costanzo, D. Evans, P
of the Statics Modeling Kit developed by S. Ardakani and Ellis [11]. It wasdesigned to resemble a model of the equilibrium of a rigid body in 3D. It is very simple and easyto set up yet maintains sufficient stability to remain stable throughout the students’ completion ofthe activity. The labeled points A, B, C, and D, shown in Figure 1, are needed when studentscreate force vectors to solve the problem, which will be outlined in the following sections. Thevertical beam is placed at the origin (0,0) on the table by a ball and socket joint. Surrounding itare three pulleys, A, B, and C, with coordinates of (-3, 1, 2.5), (1, -3, 3.5), and (3, 2, 3.5),respectively. Strings are fastened to the top of the beam and rested over the three pulleys
foundations of equilibrium that will be applied in manylater courses. At a large R1 university in the southeast students take the course in a flipped,mastery-based classroom environment. The mastery-based approach is employed for theassessments where students are evaluated for how they demonstrated the course mastery objectiveson each assessment in the course. The students solve a single assessment problem every other weekwhere they are asked to organize their solution following the mastery objectives. The masteryobjectives are the key pieces of the solution solving process for every statics problem. The studentsare required to write, draw, or include equation(s) for each objective for each problem, but thework is unique to the type of problem being
, Salt Lake City, Utah. 10.18260/1-2—30917[6] Xiao, Z., Zuo, S., Zhao, J., Fu, W., Goldstein, M. H., Philpott, M. L., Laystrom-Woodard, J.,Pool, M., Wolters, A., & Woodard, B. S. (2019, June), Understanding Interrelated GrowthMind-set and Academic Participation & Performance Paper presented at 2019 ASEE AnnualConference & Exposition, Tampa, Florida. 10.18260/1-2—33479[7] Anita L. Campbell, Inês Direito & Mashudu Mokhithi (2021), “Developing growth mindsetsin engineering students: a systematic literature review of interventions”, European Journal ofEngineering Education, 46:4, 503-527, DOI: 10.1080/03043797.2021.1903835[8] Sisk, V. F., Burgoyne, A. P., Sun, J., Butler, J. L., & Macnamara, B. N. (2018). “To WhatExtent and Under
& Exposition, Tampa, Florida. 10.18260/1-2-33525[2]. Sala, A. L., & Echempati, R. (2011, June), Performance Assessment of Undergraduate Vibrations Course Paper presented at 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Vancouver, BC. 10.18260/1-2—18866[3]. Sridhara, B. S., & White, D. H. (2012, June), Developing Experiments for the Vibration Course with Minimal Expenditure Paper presented at 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, San Antonio, Texas. 10.18260/1-2—21188[4]. Turso, J., & Johnson, D., & Sweeney, S. (2003, June), Development of A Mechanical Vibrations Course for Engineering Technologists Paper presented at 2003 Annual Conference, Nashville, Tennessee. 10.18260/1-2—12653[5
been most commonly utilized in this course over the pastdecade, it is not the only one. Variations on this project have included designing a linkage elementfor a can crusher or a weightlifting mechanism. Regardless of the application, the underlyingcombination of treating the element as a two-force member and combining the concepts of staticmoment equilibrium, normal stress, and factor of safety is shared between these projects. Wewould be happy to share more information with any reader who is interested in implementing anyof these projects in their class.References [1] D. E. Allen, R. S. Donham, and S. A. Bernhardt, “Problem-Based Learning,” New Directions for Teaching and Learning, vol. 2011, no. 128, pp. 21–29, 2011. [2] J. G. Sullivan
. However, more work must first becompleted to develop and evaluate BML approaches for other upper-level, mechanical engineeringcourses.References[1] Y. Yin, Y. Wang, J. A. Evans and D. Wang, "Quantifying the dynamics of failure across science, startups and security," Nature, vol. 575, pp. 190-194, 2019.[2] L. Eskreis-Winkler and A. Fishbach, "Not Learning from Failure - The Greatest Failure of All," Psychological Science, vol. 30, no. 12, pp. 1733-1744, 2019.[3] S. Atwood, M. T. Siniawski and A. R. Carberry, "Using Standards-based Grading to Effectively Assess Project-based Design Courses," in Proceedings of the 121st ASEE Anual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, IN, 2014.[4] M. Henri, D. Johnson and B. Nepal, "A review of
] "Just-in-Time Teaching (JiTT)," V. U. C. f. Teaching, Ed., ed.[3] S. Simkins and M. Maier, Just-in-time Teaching: Across the Disciplines, Across the Academy. Stylus, 2010.[4] J. L. Riskowski, "Teaching undergraduate biomechanics with Just-in-Time Teaching," Sports Biomechanics, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 168-179, 2015/04/03 2015, doi: 10.1080/14763141.2015.1030686.[5] M. Prince, "Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research," Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 93, no. 3, pp. 223-231, 2004, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x.[6] R. M. Felder, R. Brent, and B. A. Oakley, Teaching and Learning STEM : A Practical Guide. Newark, UNITED STATES: John Wiley &
at live Q&A sessions using chat and polling features, where S =(live Q&A sessions) and P = (student polling events).The results from using the chat forum were positive and consistent. A total of 73 questions andcomments were typed across S1-S3 with two instances of 25 occurring as the high. Bycomparison, Cohort 2021 had a total of 8 questions and comments with 4 as the high [7]; asignificant improvement on the order of nine times. The results of the polling were also positive.The responses peaked at 78 students (82% participation) in Poll 2, followed by a steady decreasedown to 62 students (65% participation) in Poll 4. No obvious trend emerges when multiple pollsare used between Cohort 2022 and Cohort 2021. However, the