. Maranzana, F. Segonds, F. Lesage, and J. Nelson, “Collaborative Design Tools: A Comparison between Free Software and PLM Solutions in Engineering Education,” in IFIP International Conference on Product Lifecycle Management, 2012. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012, pp. 547-558.[9] C. Pezeshki, R. T. Frame, and B. Humann, “Preparing undergraduate mechanical engineering students for the global marketplace-new demands and requirements,” in ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings. Salt Lake City, USA, 2004.[10] M. J. Gorp, “Computer-Mediated Communication in Preservice Teacher Education,” Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, vol. 14(2), pp. 8-14, 2014.[11] E. A. Fielding, J. R. Mccardle, B. Eynard, N. Hartman, and A. Fraser
president of EWU’s SAE Motor Sports club and a student member of both SME and ASME.Ms. Shannon M. KellamJacob StewartDr. Robert E. Gerlick, Eastern Washington University Dr. Gerlick is Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Mechanical Engineering Technology at Eastern Washington University. He teaches courses in the areas of Robotics, Mechanics, Thermodynam- ics, Fluids, CAD, and Capstone Design.Dr. B. Matthew Michaelis, Eastern Washington University Matthew Michaelis is an Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Mechanical Engineering Technology at Eastern Washington University in Cheney, WA. His research interests include additive manufacturing, advanced CAD modeling, and engineering pedagogy
, “Immersion in desktop virtual reality,” in Proceedings of the 10th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, 1997, pp. 11–19.[10] T. Griffiths and D. Guile, “A connective model of learning: The implications for work process knowledge,” Eur. Educ. Res. J., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 56–73, 2003.[11] B. Dalgarno and M. J. Lee, “What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments?,” Br. J. Educ. Technol., vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 10–32, 2010.[12] H.-M. Huang, U. Rauch, and S.-S. Liaw, “Investigating learners’ attitudes toward virtual reality learning environments: Based on a constructivist approach,” Comput. Educ., vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 1171–1182, 2010.[13] S. E. Kirkley and J. R. Kirkley, “Creating next
features that would promote more meaningful engagement in the app, show the importance of high quality design and implementation of technology tools for learning and research. References [1] S. Sorby, N. Veurink, and S. Streiner, “Does spatial skills instruction improve STEM outcomes? The answer is ‘yes,’” Learning and Individual Differences , vol. 67, pp. 209–222, 2018. [2] M. Berkowitz and E. Stern, “Which cognitive abilities make the difference? Predicting academic achievements in advanced STEM studies,” Journal of Intelligence , vol. 6, no. 4, p. 48, 2018. [3] S. Sorby, B. Casey, N. Veurink, and A. Dulaney, “The role of
Paper ID #26665Using Digital Sketching and Augmented Reality Mobile Apps to Improve Spa-tial Visualization in a Freshmen Engineering CourseDr. Diana Bairaktarova, Virginia Tech Dr. Diana Bairaktarova is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Engineering Education at Virginia Tech. Through real-world engineering applications, Dr. Bairaktarova’s experiential learning research spans from engineering to psychology to learning sciences, as she uncovers how individual performance is influenced by aptitudes, spatial skills, personal interests and direct manipulation of mechanical objects.Dr. Lelli Van Den Einde, University of
Paper ID #26954Analyzing Three Competency Models of Advanced ManufacturingMr. Sang Hoo Oh, Florida State University Sang Hoo Oh is a Ph.D. student at the Florida State University School of Information. Sang Hoo is also a research assistant at the Florida State University Information Institute, where he works with Dr. Marcia Mardis and Dr. Charles McClure. Prior coming to the Florida State University, he received B.S. in Public Policy from Indiana University and M.S. in Information Systems form Yonsei University, South Korea. His research interest includes advanced manufacturing, information policy, and big data.Dr. Marcia
Spatial Visualization Training,” ICERI2017 Proceedings, pp. 5373– 5381, October 2017.[10] N. Delson, and L. Van Den Einde, “Sketching, Assessment, and Persistence in Spatial Visualization Training on a Touchscreen”, 124 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition th proceedings, Columbus, OH, 2017.[11] E. Hilton, M. Paige, B. Williford, W. Li, T. Hammond, and J. Linsey, “Engineering Drawing for the Next Generation: Students Gaining Additional Skills in the Same Timeframe," in Proceedings for the 124th ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. Columbus, OH, 2017.[12] J.E. Bell, et al. "Board# 32: Work in Progress: A Study of Augmented Reality for the Development of Spatial
Figure 2 serves to reinforce the topics of 3D orientation, extrusion symmetry, draft angles, andsketch constraints. This is a typical assignment in the third week. Figure 2: Example Sketch & Extrude AssignmentThe following in-classroom cases are witnessed: • Student A believes he/she has met all five grading criteria prior to class start or during class time. An available evaluator evaluates the work and finds no mistakes. Student A may exit the class. This is the quickest case, and the evaluation process ranges from 30 – 180 seconds per assignment. • Student B believes he/she has met all five grading criteria prior to class start or during class time. An evaluator is not free, as all are
”, “B”, “C”, or“D” for any particular student. Items on the instrument are arranged by three identifiedconstructs, and appear in order of increasing difficulty. The constructs included in the test areMapping 2D to 3D, Planar Geometry and Projection Theory, and Graphics Conventions. Figure 1 Sample Item from InstrumentParticipants will be given a score of how many correct responses they provided, and will not bepenalized for incorrect responses or blank items. A total score out of 30 will be given to thestudent, along with sub-scores to explain performance on individual constructs [4]. Participantsin this study will be students enrolled in one of two introductory engineering graphics coursesthat are part of a two
, basically the difference between Pre- scoreand Post- score for each student is used. However, there were three different ways of identifyingsuch difference as: a) raw score increase (decrease) b) percentage improvement c) tier indicator of becoming top-scorer.Each one of these measurements have value per se, and can be used in different situations tomeasure the improvement shown by the students. The more direct measurement is the firstoption, raw score, which is basically the Post-score minus the Pre-score; this is a valid indicatorhowever it might misrepresent the actual improvement since a student with low score in the Pre-test has more room to get a high increase, which does not imply automatically that it is at thelevel of
2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.educause.edu/ecar.[4] D.S. Palmer. “A Look into the Planning Processes of Bring Your Own Device Programs in K-12 Schools”. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PN, 2017.[5] K. Ehnle. “6 ways to use students’ smartphones for learning”. December 26, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.iste.org/explore/articleDetail?articleid=528 [Accessed Feb. 8, 2019].[6] J.L. Woodworth, et al. “Credo Online Charter School Study”. Center for Research on Education Outcomes. 2015. [Online]. Available: https://credo.stanford.edu/pdfs/Online%20Charter%20Study%20Final.pdf [Accessed Feb. 7, 2019].[7] B. Jacob, “The opportunities and challenges of digital learning”. May 5, 2016
course includean introduction to sustainability terminology with contextualized design problems andsustainability ideation. In the team projects (4 to 5 members per team) the humanitariandesign problem is defined contextually with the following aspects (i) Listening tocommunity – “design-for-community” vs “design-for-Industry” (ii) Technology totransform society vs society transform technology (iii) In addition to technicalconstraints, teams consider in the design (a) who suffers and who benefits and (b) howthe designs increase opportunities and resources, reduce imposed risks and harms andenhance human capabilities [12]. Figure 1: External representation designs-for-sustainability: Making the implicit information explicit
files of a correctly designed model that reflects what students are expected to submit.Within each rubric, instructors can specify which features to grade: volume, material, compositeshape score, center of mass, and check for fully defined sketches (see Appendix B for moredetail). However, similar to the rubrics used by the graduate student graders, GW rubrics do notattempt to measure design intent in any manner. Although GW was used to grade the bi-weeklylabs, it was not used to grade the weekly homework assignments because it was not certain GWcould replicate the same level of feedback performed by the TAs.Research ObjectiveIn general, computational tools for grading 3D CAD files do have many advantages however it isnot clear how they
completed.Whiteboard Learning Modules:The whiteboarding learning modules focused on ideation, modeling strategies, problem-solvingstrategies. These techniques provided sketching practice prior to learning the CAD learningoutcomes. For instance, during basic drafting and design and engineering drawing principles,students were asked to freehand sketch an isometric, front, top, and side view of a simple shape,as presented in Figure 2 below. In addition, during this portion of the course, they used freehandsketching on whiteboards to learn sketching views through different axonometric projections, aswell as proportions and dimensioning for manufacturing.Figure 2: a) Sample question and b) student response to support engineering drafting and design.For the
midterm. Similar trends are seen in the final examand final course score. While spatial visualization ability seems to have the largest influence ontest scores and the class performance as a whole, it appears that gender modifies the effect ofspatial visualization, such that male and female students with the same visualization ability maynot have the same experience on exams.a) b)Figure 2. Interaction plots showing influence of gender and spatial visualization ability on (a)midterm standardized score and (b) homework hours.Figure 2b shows that spatial visualization also appears to have some effect on the averagenumber of homework hours reported by students with different spatial visualization
Paper ID #24741An Investigation into the Value and Benefits of the SOLIDWORKS Certifica-tion ProgramDr. Joseph Rudy Ottway, Murray State University Dr. Rudy Ottway is an assistant professor in the Institute of Engineering at Murray State University in Murray, KY. He teaches SOLIDWORKS, AutoCAD, and engineering drawing in the Engineering Graph- ics and Design program. Prior to academia, he worked as a CAD Analyst with Science Applications International Corporation in Huntsville, AL. He completed a B.S. in Engineering Graphics and Design and a M.S. in Management of Technology from Murray State University, and a Ph.D. in