18 25 26 27 Correct # 12 67 61 64 4 32 8 11 10 2 56 Correct % 10.8% 60.4% 55.0% 57.7% 3.6% 28.8% 7.2% 9.9% 9.0% 1.8% 50.5% Pre-Test Result in Percentage 100.0% 80.0% 60.0% 40.0% 20.0% 0.0% 5 6 7 12 13 14 17 18 25 26 27 Fig. 1. Percentage of the students with the correct answer in pre-test.The data in Table I and Fig. 1 shows that four problems (6, 7
insoluble and not dividedat the molecular level. The particles are on the order of 20-50 microns in size.A useful comparison to make in class is to compare a solution and a colloid. These comparisonsare rarely made in general chemistry or materials courses, but important because students oftenmisuse the term solution. Students could be given the column and row headings and complete theelements of the table either individually, in small groups or as a large group classroomdiscussion. Table 1: Comparison of Colloids and Solutions Colloid Solution Phases Involved (solid, solid in solid; solid in liquid, solid in liquid, liquid in liquid, gas
Advanced Dynamics has a limited distribution. So, theideas expounded below may seem innovative and new, yet they are not. The purpose of thispaper is to demonstrate the use of rotation operators to solve this problem and to inspire readersto create other innovative solutions. This is the educational purpose of this paper. Since thissolution is based on rotation operators, and rotation operators are often overlooked in dynamics,let us begin with a brief historical overview of rotation operator. Then, I will start from thedefinition of rotation operator, provide examples of operations, and then verify the solutions. Rotation operator was first introduced by J. W. Gibbs in 1901 as mentioned in Ying’sAdvanced Dynamics [1]. A search of the
to handle its operation. In thispaper we discuss about a simple object tracking tilt-head robot that uses the power of a JevoisMachine Vision camera and can monitor the movement of a desired object and move along itsdirection12-14. This simple robot can serve as a starter experiment for the students to set foot inlearning concepts of computer vision through easier cost-effective implementations. Figure 1. Block diagram of the Object Tracking System using Jevois camera and Arduino This project aims to design, build, and test an autonomous 3D sorting system through theuse of an object tracking system and the Arduino microcontroller as the center of the whole system.It is equipped with a Jevois camera that is used to locate the
, print preparation, material extrusion, andmanufacturability constraints. The integration of the proposed solution with existingmanufacturing lessons and faculty skillsets is also discussed.1. MOTIVATION AND BACKGROUND Additive manufacturing (AM, or 3D printing) technology is quickly becoming a common sightin cornerstone engineering design courses [1,2]. The reason is twofold: (i) AM is set to be adominant tool for end-use manufacturing (and thus it benefits engineering students to be exposedas soon in their careers as possible) and (ii) low-cost AM systems can enable rapid prototypingand iteration in the design process, while dovetailing well with computer-aided design (CAD)skills also learned in cornerstone design courses. Learning
2019 FYEE Conference : Penn State University , Pennsylvania Jul 28 Work in Progress: An Introduction to Computer Vision for First-Year Electrical and Computer Engineering Students Daniel T. Klawson, Nathaniel A. Ferlic, and Cheng Peng Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park Abstract-- This work-in-progress paper will detail one of of machine learning, artificial intelligence, image processing,ENEE101’s newest modules, computer vision. ENEE101 is the and self-driving cars.introductory course to electrical and computer engineering (ECE)at the University of Maryland (UMD) [1] [2]. This
design experiences.explore their potential through various course contents, The author’s previous works [1-6] describe the detailstopics, and activities integrated with the EML about the Freshman Engineering Discovery courses that havepedagogical approach. In order to indirectly assess and been running for more than ten years at Marquette Universitymeasure how freshman engineering students have built – Opus College of Engineering. The main objective of thetheir engineering entrepreneurial mindset through these two-semester course integrated with EML is to provide newtwo semester courses, course surveys were given to engineering students with a vision as engineers with anstudents twice a
primer when a field is significantly advanced (1). These types ofprimers can be used to help to make decisions by practitioners; for education, practitionersinclude administrators, educators, advisors, and researchers. In order to help with recruitmentand outreach for ASEE, primers can help assist novices with familiarizing themselves with thefield. Not only does the primer summarize the research, but it explains how to interpret researchoutput and apply it to practice. This paper adapts a model introduced by Weiner et al. (2018) to first-year engineeringeducation research at the ASEE and FYEE annual conferences (2). This study did not apply athorough systematic literature review defined by Borrego et al. (2014), and instead focuses onthe
sequence, beginning with a cornerstone design course and culminatingwith the capstone design course. Students in EDSGN 100 learn fundamental design skills,techniques, and tools that are built upon and applied throughout their engineering curricula. Theupdated student learning outcomes are as follows: Students will (1) apply engineering design toaddress design opportunities; (2) use systems thinking and apply it to engineering design; (3)develop professional skills necessary for becoming a successful engineer; (4) communicateengineering concepts and designs; and (5) gain experience in hands-on fabrication whiledeveloping a “maker” mindset.A common grading scheme (Table 1) was adopted to ensure common expectations for students.Compared with prior
design classroomAbstractThe effectiveness of a learner-centered pedagogical model called “Flip-J” is evaluated in thiswork-in-progress paper. First-year engineering students participated in a project-basedengineering design process curriculum with a service-learning component. Students wereassigned weekly reading materials to be discussed in-class using a four stage Flip-J process. Thestages were: 1) individual reading assignments outside of classroom; 2) in-class formation ofcollaborative expert groups; 3) in-class formation of cooperative Jigsaw groups and 4) in-classreflection exercises. More than 80% of the students indicated a productive experience from thecooperative learning strategy used. Students’ feedback also included recommendations
Full Paper: Hands-On Laboratory Exercises for Engineering Applications of Mathematics CourseIn Fall 2007, the First-Year Engineering Program (FEP) was started with the intent of increasingstudent retention and success. One of the main hindrances to retention at a public universityengineering program with open enrollment is the unpreparedness of students for rigorouscurriculum requirements of the first year. In an effort to help first year engineering students whoare one or two semesters behind Calculus I, FEP offers Engineering Applications of Mathematics(E-Math) course, which was inspired by the Wright State model for Engineering MathematicsEducation [1]. E-Math aims to teach College Algebra
Full Paper: Implement Hands-on Activities for Statics Course into Student Success Programs 1. BackgroundThe University of Wisconsin-Platteville (UWP) is a very much student-centered teachingschool with high reputation for its engineering programs. The College of Engineering,Mathematics and Science Student Success Programs (EMS SSP) plays a crucial role inhelping students become the next generation of successful engineers.In EMS SSP, there are three Living Learning Communities (LLCs) for students pursing adegree in STEM fields. In 2017, the UWP is proud to offer an Explore EMS LLC for allfreshman students in the College of EMS who are interested in exploring career opportunities inEMS fields. The Women in
includes teamsfrom around the globe [1-5].Team Design Project IThere are two major group design projects worth 50% of their total grade. The engineeringdesign process in introduced during the first design project. This project is based on reverseengineering a simple device like an electric toothbrush, and then redesigning the device foradded functionality. Teams are formed the first week of the semester, so team dynamics are a bitunstable because the students don’t know each other very well. Teams are typically formed bywho they happen to sit near. During this first project, students learn about reverse engineering,perform market analysis, derive specifications and functional diagrams, generate designconcepts, and apply concept selection
, etc.Tinkering has been defined as a type of making that sits on the more creative and improvisationalcontinuum where things could fail in unexpected and sometimes wonderful ways [1]. Thisapproach relies on materials, phenomena and models to inspire ideas along with a collaborativeculture of facilitators and fellow tinkers to support learners in realizing their ideas [2]. A learningdimensions framework for Making and Tinkering developed by the Exploratorium [3] providedguidance and structure to the “tinkering” instructional initiative for this project. Although theframework was generated with K-12 informal learning experiences in mind, it offers a promisingpedagogical approach for undergraduate engineering education. The five Learning Dimensions(LD) of
future course that is the focus of this work incorporates many ofcareers. Third, they are unsuccessful in building meaningful these practices. As described in the following sections, itconnections with their engineering faculty and peers, and as provides students with significant mastery experiences, thesuch do not develop a strong identity as an engineer [1]. opportunity to collaborate on a design project with their peersAnother study found that the three most common reasons for and apply their theoretical background to concretestudents leaving engineering were poor advising and engineering activities. Moreover, our results demonstrateteaching, the difficulty of engineering curriculum, and
hands-on exposure and consideration of manufacturing processes. These projects work well in some respects, yet both lack the physical “building and testing” experience due to physical constraints. An overview of the two projects and the previous course set up can be read in [4]. As a result, studentsFigure 1: Design process as taught in the learn about the engineering design process (see Fig. 1) in theory course without fully completing it with practice. They are encouraged tocome up with creative ideas but are not given the chance to verify their
the original project, students were required to submit a report that compiledall of the design work they did over the seven-week period. This included sections on constraintsand criteria, conceptual design, detailed design including SolidWorks drawings, prototyping,testing, and final design. Each group was also required to make a video demonstration of theirdevice to share with the rest of the class. Figure 1 shows examples of final projects. Figure 1: Examples of final designs from the course. From the left: Monkey’s Playhouse complete withpully elevator, gear crank door, and slide. Musical gear box with moveable gear train. Pull back car withinterchangeable wheel sizes. Crane with pulley
within people as connections are made toother knowledge. The academic theory of service-learning has been used for both types ofconnections. Service-learning connects people through the “service” that is done and currentexperiences to previous ones through reflection upon that service[1], [2]. It is through theseconnections that service-learning can be used to make STEM education less superficial.Oftentimes, STEM educators want to provide cross-cutting experiences and higher levels ofcognition—primarily because the nature of today’s world requires solutions to complexproblems. Instead of just remembering or understanding facts, experiences should lead toanalysis, evaluation, and creation. Connections between academic learners and practitioners
second class was a required tracking classfor the department (Error Analysis and Experimental Optimization) with fifty sophomore students. Thethird class was a required laboratory class for juniors (Materials Laboratory 1 & 2) with forty-fivestudents broken into sections of ten to twelve.The “Accountable Talk” practices that will be discussed here include; “Think-Pair-Share”, “QuickWrites”/”Exit Tickets”, and “Structured Discourse/Circle of Truth”. The verbal discourse of the studentswas taped with student permission using digital recorders, and analyzed using the Conversation AnalysisTool (CAT)4. Student groups were selected at random, and the recorder was moved to a new group everyten minutes. No student names or identifying information
evaluation will contribute to knowledge on student perceptions and realization of academic and professional support in engineering and will enhance understanding of alternate academic pathways to success for alternately admitted engineering students.Background and Significance Undergraduate engineering education is in the process of a radical transformation; many programshave begun to restructure pedagogical practice and prioritize a broad range of essential socioemotional“soft skills” to both better prepare engineers to be leaders in the public sphere and in daily practice, and torecruit and retain a more diverse pool of talent to inspire innovation [1]–[7]. There are still many barriersto pursuing an undergraduate degree in
to this lack of understanding, as such we argue that students constructreasons for their expected future prosperity that if they work harder now, they deserve morelater.IntroductionIt seems a universal feature of human experience to tell stories about one’s place and direction inthe world. Research on storytelling has shown that this is as true of individuals as it is of nationstates.1 Given this range, we can assume that members of cultural groups of sizes betweenindividuals and nations will share common, if never identical, narratives. In this paper, we reporton a collection of common narratives that come from a distinctive student culture, that ofundergraduate engineering education in America.Our paper reports on two related beliefs that
via different metrics, andproposes reasons for some of the successes and failures.CurriculumThe “Modeling and Simulation in Materials Science” sequence of courses included three labsadministered in the 4th, 6th, and 7th semesters of a “standard” 8-semester undergraduatecurriculum in MSE. While there are always deviations from a standard course map forindividual students, the course offerings at OSU are such that most students did take thissequence of courses in that order (which is required) and in those particular semesters. Thegeneral outline and descriptions of the courses are outlined in Table 1. Table 1: Overview of Curriculum for 3 the 3-Semester Sequence of Computational MSE Labs Lab 1 (Semester 4
online learning environment. We present a method forapplying the K-means algorithm for learner type identification within the more constrainedcontext of a highly technical and advanced MOOC on nanotechnology. We investigate differenttypes of learner behavior that emerge from the above-mentioned clustering and the ways inwhich each group of learners is distinct. Finally, we assign labels to each user group per theirdominant behavioral characteristics and use hypothesis testing to show that the difference inlearner behavior across groups is statistically significant.Literature Review:Learning platforms such as MOOCs provide the means for knowledge dissemination withoutregard to geographic, social and financial barriers [1] and hold the potential
to university education.The following three research questions are analyzed in this work that were also used in [Ref 10].Q1) If you are required to draw the graph of a given function by using technology, what kind oftechnology would you use? Please either choose one of the following or write your own answerand explain why. 1. Calculator 6. Fortran 2. Excel 7. Matlab 3. C 8. LabVIEW 4. C++ 9.Other______________ 5. C#Q2) If there is a definite integral given, which one of the following would you prefer to use tocalculate the given
increased the level of distraction aswell. Even if computers were brought to class with the purpose of taking notes, or access classmaterial, too many students were using theirs for activities not related to the lecture (e.g. surfingthe web, checking emails, instant messaging, etc.). We knew we were not alone, as many of ourcolleagues were facing the same issues, but this was of little avail. [1,2]What we didIn 2013 we received a grant from our institution to “flip the classroom” and we decided to use itfor our 4 credit course in Ordinary Differential Equations. The main reasons were 1) both of ushad been teaching the course for several semesters, and 2) the natural structure of the lecture: model of differential equation à
our finding from 2015 that, after participation in thecourse, students were less likely to identify understanding the problem as one of the mostimportant design tasks 1.In response to this finding, the 2016 curriculum was modified to increase emphasis onunderstanding the problem before beginning to build anything. Originally students wereprovided the design prompt (make a stove) and permitted to proceed in whatever waythey saw fit without much in the way of instruction. When introducing the stove projecton campus in 2016, the instructors first spent an hour exploring concepts associated withcombustion to better understand both the technical aspects involved with building astove, and other ways in which people have solved the problem of
: phases of the design process, hardware or softwaredevelopment, complexity, flexibility, project scope, project emphasis, and main objective of theproject. Next, a user interface was developed to gather relevant details from designers about theirprojects, upon which a mathematical comparison is performed against each of the designapproaches’ strengths and characteristics. The result is a recommendation for which designprocess, method, or environment (or combination thereof) is best-suited to the problem at hand.Design ApproachesMechanical Engineering Figure 1. Illustrative example of the engineering design process5Engineering design is one of the most commonly taught mechanical engineering designmethodologies, especially within the
in 2009; Brazil in 2010; China in 2012; Costa Rica in 2013; New Zealand in 2014; Italyin 2015; and Chile in 2016. Over 280 students and seventeen different faculty members haveparticipated.This study abroad program was initially designed to address ABET General Criterion 3(h) whichnotes that graduates must have “the broad education necessary to understand the impact ofengineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental and societal context.” Specific ABETeducational outcomes for the program include: 1) the broad education necessary to understand theimpact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context, 2) recognition of the need for, andan ability to engage in, life-long learning, and 3) knowledge of contemporary issues
developed by student teams. Most importantly, we will collect valuable insights from endusers, i.e., what they can learn from the critiquing process, what lessons we can learn from theirfeedback. These will provide us with meaningful information to help evaluate gamificationproducts designed to enhance engineering concept learning.Keywords:Peer-based Gamification, Engineering EducationIntroductionGamification is commonly known as the application of game elements in non-game contexts [1].Game elements include badges, score systems, leaderboard, levels and so on, and they tend tomotivate the game player to engage. In recent years, gamification has seen a rapid application inthe education field due to the fact that game products can enhance student
inspiredby nature and how it might benefit the following areas that were the focus of the summit. 1. Materials and structures for extreme environments 2. Persistence of life in extreme environments 3. Guidance, navigation and communication 4. Next generation aeronautics and in-space propulsion 5. Sustainable energy conversion and powerThese areas are focus areas of NASA and of space exploration in general. This paper willdescribe the design methodology and approaches used for this project, report on the outcomes,and discuss lessons learned.1.0 IntroductionPropulsion and power systems have made large strides over the past centuries leading to moreefficient jet engines and solar