, such as the final project,were vital to our learning as engineering students. Specifically, the way our professor taught thecourse was rated either on par or higher than the department and university mean in theeffectiveness of instruction. Along with the 5-point scale, students were also able to leaveanonymous feedback about their opinions of the course. A response from one of our peers sumsup our views on the course by saying, “If you devote the time and energy to [our professor’s]class[,] it is extremely rewarding as you will come out with coding experience, 3D modeling, aswell as tangible products and technical writing.”The course also helped us with our time management skills. One of our peers said, “He [ourprofessor] has a strong focus
the product owner. • Weekly sub-goals are based on the software requirements document, but minor changes can be made as issues are encountered during implementation. • Written assignments (beyond the design specification) are technical and non-technical, such as broad reflection essays.Assessment is based on performance on presentations and writing activities, and the deliverableis a final project presentation. Providing a complete product is expected but not a majority oftheir grade. The following changes are suggested for a more inquiry-based experience forstudents: • The premise of the project is a vague question or obstacle to the state of the art. • Students are required to have an authentic project by