video production affects student en-gagement: an empirical study of MOOC videos. L@S’14 Proceedings of the First ACM Conference on Learning at Scale, New York: ACM, 41–50.10. deKoning B, Tabbers H, Rikers R, Paas F (2009). Towards a framework for attention cueing in instructional animations: guidelines for research and design. Educ Psychol Rev 21, 113– 140.11. J. Mike Walker '66 Department of Mechanical Engineering. Improving Polymer Devolatilization Technology in Industry. (Feb. 24, 2023). Accessed: Feb. 28, 2023. [Online Video]. Available: https://youtu.be/Ce5XhwU7D4c12. J. Mike Walker '66 Department of Mechanical Engineering. Reversing Irradiation Effects of Inconel 718 Beamline Window. (Feb. 24, 2023). Accessed: Feb. 28
).In addition to student ratings of various course attributes, insight can be gained from open-endedcomments on end of year evaluations. All comments from the six PBL offerings of the coursethat specifically addressed the project were compiled and are presented in Appendix B. Mostcomments were favorable (14) though negative comments about the project-based model werealso made (3). General themes from favorable comments included: • student appreciation for intermediate project deliverables as a means to receive feedback and remain on track • a course structure that facilitated real-world connections and provided practical knowledge students perceived as useful to their future coursework or career • a reduction in the
://www.researchgate.net/publication/302152342_A_review_of_Problem- Based_Learning_applied_to_Engineering. [Accessed April 26, 2023].[3] C. G. Merrett, “Analysis if Flipped Classroom Techniques and Case Study Based Learning in an Introduction of Engineering Materials Course,” Advances in Engineering Education, vol. 11, issue 1, pp. 2-29, 2023.[4] E. P. Douglas, Introduction to Materials Science and Engineering: A Guided Inquiry, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Pearson Higher Education, 2014.[5] B. S. Bloom, M. D. Engelhart, E. J. Furst, W. H. Hill, and D. R. Krathwohl, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Vol. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain, New York: David McKay Company, 1956.
learningobjectives in a laboratory environment with learners working in pairs.Figure 1. Materials Taboo. (A) Overview of a materials property chart, elastic modulus vs.density, featured as the inspiration behind our Materials Taboo game. (B) A green tray featuringrounded balls of the same dimension made from different materials for Materials Taboo. Balls areorganized in a quadrant coordinate system to mimic the materials property chart featured in (A).Figure 2. Materials Taboo Question Examples. Examples of questioning that learners can askthat related to the material properties of the balls featured.2.2. Gamified Module 2 “Materials Battleships”The second game presented called “Materials Battleships” is inspired by the popular boardgameBattleship® [27
) near the end to assessthe effectiveness of the learning modules and any changes in their beliefs. The two surveys containa mix of multiple-choice, 7-point Likert-type scale (7 being “Strongly agree”), and short-answerquestions whose responses are inductively coded by the lead author (for a list of questions, seeSI-B: Survey questions). For this study, we seek to answer the following research questions (RQs): RQ1: How well are DS and SW skills integrated into the current MSE curriculum? RQ2: How do MSE students view DS and SW in the context of their work?Results and DiscussionWe will only report and discuss the most salient results in this section, and the rest can be found inSI-A: Additional survey results. All 42 students in MSE 104L
Materials, 2 nd Ed.,” Expanding Educational Horizons, LLC, 2009.[vii]Available at: http://madhuvable.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Entire%20Book%202018.pdf Douglas, Jamie and Mark Holdhusen, “Development of Low-Cost, Hands-On Lab Experiments for Online[viii]Mechanics of Materials Course,” Annual Conference, American Society for Engineering Education, 2013.[ix] Amend, John R., and Hod Lipson. “FreeLoader: An Open Source Universal Testing Machine for High -ThroughputExperimentation.” Volume 6: 35th Mechanisms and Robotics Conference, Parts A and B, 2011, doi:10.1115/detc2011-48296. “Stress/Strain Apparatus (without Sensors) • AP-8214A.” PASCO Scientific, www.pasco.com/products/lab-[x]apparatus/mechanics/centripetal-force-and
Answer Count (a) How often do you use (b) Which tools/methods are you using? Please computational/simulation tools for your job? check all that apply.Figure 1: Simulation Tools (38 respondents were grouped into 3 categories. In industry: Respon-dents with industry experience that reported to have computational modules in their curriculum.Masters/Ph.D.: Respondents pursuing/have a Masters/Ph.D. degree without industry experienceyet. No Comp. Modules: Respondents that have reported to have no computational modules intheir curriculum.)Programming LanguagesThe following two questions were asked specific to the use of programming languages: • Q3: “How often are you working
Ghana, National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, Nagpur, India, and the University of Birmingham, UK. Also, David was a research and teaching fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), USA, and holds a Kaufmann Teaching Certificate from MIT.Adrian Oshioname EberemuMr. Kazeem A. Salami, Ahmadu Bello UniversityAyodeji Nathaniel Oyedeji, Ahmadu Bello UniversityAkinlolu AkandeFatai Olukayode Anafi, Ahmadu Bello UniversityAbdulkarim Salawu Ahmed ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 Adoption of the CACPLA Pedagogy Collaborate Approach to Improve Peer- Facilitated Tutorials in Materials ScienceDavid O. Obada1,5.6,7, Raymond B. Bako2,5
traditional class, final grade consisted of 5% quizzes, 10% homework, 10% in-classexercises, and 75% exams. Major differences between the instructional strategies include the useof Persuall, assigning homework, and the overall weight of the exams.4. Results and Discussion a. Student PerformanceThe distribution of exam performance comparing flipped and traditional classes is seen in Figure2. For the traditional group (A), the average of the three exams was taken for each student. Theweighted average exam performance for the traditional class had a mean of 80.14%. For theflipped group (B), the weighted average of the five midterms was taken for each student. Theweighted average exam performance for the flipped class had a mean of 79.28%, which was
-centered cubic crystal structure: a) A hard-sphere unit cell representation, b) A reduced sphere unit cell, and c) An aggregate of many atoms [1]The materials science course at our school has a physical lab related to this topic. In this lab,ping-pong balls are used to represent atoms, and adhesive is used to connect them together basedon the definitions of a given crystal structure. This lab significantly helped students to developspatial skills and an understanding of typical crystal structures. Based on observations anddiscussions over the past several years, it was found that some students still had difficulty 1understanding the basic concepts of typical crystal structures. We
reasonably expectthat most juniors have more practice and experience with computational tools than freshmen, andtherefore would have higher confidence in their abilities. Fig. 1. Plots depicting comparisons between NCS freshman and junior mean responses regardingprogramming/simulation self-efficacy (a) and valuation (b). For all questions relating to self-efficacy, the Likert scale translates to 1 = “Not at all confident” to 6 = “Extremely Confident.” For self-efficacy questions, the scale translates to 1 = “Strongly Disagree” to 6 = “Strongly Agree.”Our findings revealed a surprising similarity in NCS freshmen and junior mean responses related tomotivation and ability to strategize for programming and simulation-related projects
Handbookuses 4 letters todistinguish the suitabilityof 8 forming processesfor 39 stainless alloys.[18]Although 4 letters areused, combinationsinclude A-B, B-C, andC-D, so there areactually 7 levels ofsuitability.A colored graphical table makes it easier to compare alloys for a given metalworking process(Types 403 and 410 martensitic stainless steels are easier to spin than any other type ofmartensitic stainless), and to compare processes for a given alloy (Type 316 is easier to roll formthan to spin). The striped boxes indicate a mixed rating, so an A-B rating appears as blue andyellow stripes. Black boxes indicate missing data. Yield PressAlloy strength brake
Paper ID #40224Origami in Materials EngineeringDr. Anuja Kamat, Wentworth Institute of Technology Anuja Kamat is an Associate Professor in the Civil Engineering Department at Wentworth Institute of Technology, Boston. Prof. Kamat received her Ph.D. in Civil Engineering from the University of Arizona, Tucson, and MS in Civil Engineering from the University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 Origami in Materials Engineering In the author’s university, Wentworth Institute of Technology, Boston, a newer electiveand a lab-based
Paper ID #38278WIP Paper: Engineering Materials Related Courses at the University of ¨ (UPRM) after Hurricane Fiona Crossed the IslandPuerto Rico in Mayaguezin September 2022Dr. Jayanta K. Banerjee, Purdue University at West Lafayette (COE) Jayanta Banerjee is a Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at University of Puerto Rico in Mayag¨uez (UPRM). Dr. Banerjee received Ph.D. from the University of Waterloo and M.Ed. from Queen’s University, both in Canada. He had worked in India, Germany, Canada, USA and Latin America. He is a Life Member of ASEE and a senior member of ASME. He has published in