subsidiary competencies which are: (i)consistent with the text of the student outcome, and (ii) expressed as student work in thecurriculum. Thus, performance indicators provide the SO committee with targeted, specific,capabilities and/or experiences for which to assess student attainment of the SO in the Program.Our Program’s current set of performance indicators, for illustration, is given in Appendix A.(In our Program’s enumeration scheme, SO-3.b is the second performance indicator for SO 3.)Performance indicators are useful, and five observations based on our Program’s experience areoffered here. The first observation is that the text of a given performance indicator should hewclosely to the specific ABET language for the SO. The goal for a set
failing. Totalexam points (Figure 2) were scaled accordingly: ─ 1.0: maximal points - 67.6; ─ 1.3 – 67.6 - 62.8 ─ 1.7 – 62.8 - 59.2; ─ 2.0 – 59.2 - 55.6; ─ 2.3 – 55.6 - 50.8; ─ 2.7 – 50.8 - 47.2; ─ 3.0 – 47.2 - 43.6; ─ 3.3 – 43.6 - 38.8; ─ 3.7 – 38.8 - 35.2; ─ 4.0 – 35.2 - 34.0; ─ 5.0 – < 34.0.Grades were grouped into three groups: 0.7-2.7, 3.0-4.0, and 5.0. This is approximately equivalentto A-B (0.7-2.7), C-D (3.0-4.0), and F (5.0) in the United States.The overall average of total exam points was 38.43 11.9 of 94 available with an average gradeof 3.7 (Figures 2 and 3). Students received the lowest number of available points on Task 1(properties and organic chemistry: 2.15
. Students will understand the definitions of stress and strain, and basic mechanical properties of materials such as a Knowledge elasticity, yielding stress, Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio 2. Students will apply concepts of strain and stress to the analysis of statically-determinate (a) and indeterminate (b) a, e Comprehension bars under axial loading 3. Students will apply concepts of strain and stress to the analysis of statically-determinate (a) and indeterminate (b) a, e Comprehension shafts in torsion 4. Students will analyze the shear, moment distribution
).AppendixEngineering Design Survey (Delivered via Google Forms)Help us better understand your expereince with learning the engineering design process at UVU. 1. What is your major? a. Mechanical Engineering b. Civil Engineering c. Other… 2. Which year of the ME program are you currently in? a. 1st year (ENGR 1000) b. 2nd Year (ENGR 2010) c. 3rd Year (ME 3010) d. 4th Year (ME 4810) 3. Which of the following classes have you already taken at UVU? a. ENGR 1000 - Introduction to Engineering b. ENGR 2010 - Statics c. ME 3010 – Linear Systems 4. Had you learned the engineering design process prior to taking classes at UVU? If yes, where? a. Yes
below : 𝑠𝑠+1.5 where 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺(𝑠𝑠) = (𝑠𝑠+1)(𝑠𝑠+2)(𝑠𝑠+4)(𝑠𝑠+10) (a)When Gc=KP, find the value of KP for stable system. (b) Find the roots for KP=100, 300 and 600. (c) Predict the overshoot and settling time for a step input. (d) Determine the actual response time for the step input for the three values of KP and compare the actual results with the predicted ones.Question 1 Assessment:Overall 57% of ME students and 61% of PDM students got 100% in this question. Thedistribution of grades in each part is listed below:22 out of 23 ME students and 28 out of 33 PDM students got 100% in part a.21 out of 23 ME students and 26 out of 33 PDM students got 100% in part b.19 out of 23 ME students and 22 out
most impressive of all 12 projects, group 2 designed and manufactured an electric ceilinghoist with a triple gear reduction producing an overall gear ratio of 52:1. Their engineeringanalysis was a corroboration between hand calculations and SolidWorks simulation. Each shaft,gear, and bearing support was fully designed and then machined using an in-house CNCmachine. Figure 5 below is a picture of their machine during testing and assemble drawing. (a) (b) Figure 5. Electric ceiling hoist from group 2; (a) testing, and (b) assembly drawing.B. Sample 2: Group 3The students in group 3 did not have the level of machine shop experience observed in group 2,however their hoist managed perform reasonably well. This
Transport Equation : the first law and then the second law as more of thesame. In a previous paper Foley (2005) describes a method of introducing the first law usingthe Reynolds Transport equation. Briefly a generic property B is considered with respectto a general ‘catch all’ control volume. (See Figure 1.)DB •B ? - Â B% net _ gen - Â (m% b) net _ in …….(1)Dt •tNote that the summation signs have been used instead of the integral sign to reflect thatmost of the problems in an introduction to thermodynamics course involve discreteinputs, outputs etc. While not to the ‘purists’ satisfaction it has worked well with studentswho later ‘ramp up’ to functional, continuous type inputs with little difficulty
" Teaching in Higher Education vol. 5, pp. 345-358, 2000.[9] D. R. Woods, "Applying problem-based learning approach to teach elementary circuit analysis," IEEE Transactions on Education, vol. 50, pp. 41-48, 2007.[10] C. Eugene, "How to teach at the university level through an active learning approach: Consquences for teaching basic electrical measurements," Measurement, vol. 39, pp. 936-946, 2006.[11] P. Cawley, A Problem-based Module in Mechanical Engineering 1991.[12] P. Anderson. (2009 January 17). The Wright State University Model for Engineering Mathematics Education (6/9/2009 ed.). Available: http://www.engineering.wright.edu/cecs/engmath/[13] M. B. Jackson and J. R. Ramsay, Eds., Problems for
Curriculum (SEC).Goals and MethodsWe hypothesized that the long-term survival and success of the SEC can be traced to the generalframework presented in its foundational course, ES201, its positive influence on the facultymembers who have taught (and are teaching) the course, and the fact that faculty members enjoyteaching the foundational course. To test our hypothesis, we designed a simple survey to collectresponses from the faculty members who have taught the course about their reactions to and ex-periences in teaching ES201. Questions in this survey included a) Do you like teaching ES201? Why or Why not? b) How has teaching ES201 influenced the way you teach other courses? c) What do you believe to be the strengths and weaknesses of
thetemperature at an arbitrary position in the fin. By using the tool menu and selecting the GoalSeek option a dialog box appears, as shown in Fig 7. The target cell (temperature in this case,cell E16) then is selected and its value is set to a desired value for that cell (175). The cell thatits value must be changed is identified (cell A16). After clicking on the Solve button, the value inthe selected cell A16 (x) automatically changes to a value that yields the desired temperature of175 oC in the target cell (E16). The solution is presented in Fig. 7-b. Page 14.17.10 Fig. 6 Solution of Example 2 by a trial and error procedure(a) Initial guess
and that feedback given to students must beinterpreted by students themselves and internalized before it can impact on students’ learning andfurther study9-11. Guided reflective thinking can often be used to guide students through self-assessment activities. Guided reflective thinking is a systematic way of thinking about one’sactions and responses such that future actions and responses can be improved12. Dewey13 describesa reflective operation as having two essential elements “(a) a state of perplexity, hesitation, doubt;and (b) an act of search or investigation directed toward bringing to light further facts ….”. Otherestablished approaches for promoting reflective thinking include prompting students withquestions and worksheets to identify
2008. Licensed as a professional civil and structural engineer in California and Wash- ington. Seven plus years of industry experience in the field of structural engineering. Approximately 13 years of teaching experience in undergraduate engineering. Page 26.776.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015 Incorporating the Finite Element Method with Photoelasticity as a Useful Modern Engineering Tool to Enhance Learning of Deformation Concepts Qin Maa, Louie Yawb a, b Edward F. Cross School
technique, and students taking ownership of the learning process. Theinstructor’s role in these interactions is also somewhat different from the typical grading of labreports. While the instructor must still grade each laboratory report, his/her feedback isreinforced and complemented by the peer feedback and evaluation.We will continue to use this approach to peer evaluation of laboratory reports in the coming year,and will add the use of a newly developed rubric to assess student success in outcome b, listedabove. Additional data will allow us to observe whether the apparent trend of increased gradescontinues. We will also consider further modifications to this approach, such as the addition ofan oral reporting component as suggested by one of the
: American Society for Engineering Education, 2001). 7. Sepahpour, B., and N. L. Asper, “A Promising Model for Integrating Design in Undergraduate Engineering Curriculum,” Proceedings, 2001 ASEE Annual Conference (Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education, 2001). 8. Byam, B. P., “An Enhanced Educational Experience for Capstone Design Projects: Using SAE Student Groups in An Industry Sponsor Role,” Proceedings, 2002 ASEE Annual Conference (Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education, 2002). 9. Porter, J. R., Morgan, J. A. and B. Zoghi, “Integrating Project Management into the Capstone Senior Design Course,” Proceedings, 2002 ASEE Annual Conference (Washington, DC: American
projectlearning, (b) early prototyping that accelerates and improves the quality of final designs, (c)formal communication (oral and written) that allows clients to easily integrate design projectresults, and (d) cadre of graduate student mentors with exceptional technical leadership skills.Program operation outcomes include: (a) annual planning, oversight, and assessment thatproduces yearly improvements, (b) project results that delight all stakeholders, leading to follow-on projects in subsequent years, and (c) minimal cost to produce results, leading to increasedfinancial resources for infrastructure.Infrastructure development outcomes include: (a) locally produced, web-based design tools,rubrics, and quick references for just-in-time professional
While these two issues are intimately connected, they are oftendecoupled.9 These problems remain intact, as evident by the continued poor performance ofengineering students in thermodynamics, Fig. 1. This strongly suggests that either a) theattempted solutions did not address the problems, or did not treat the root causes, or b) thesolutions that worked, or worked partially, were not adapted by a sufficiently wide population ofuniversity instructors such that a clear improvement in students’ performance at the nationallevel is achieved. None of the attempts seemed to be comprehensive- each targeted few certainconcepts and/or principles.Common engineering thermodynamics textbooks have not been affected by the incrementalsuccess of some of the
, define the following terms as they relate fluid mechanics and thermodynamics. Do not just recite the symbols in words; for example, mv2/2 is kinetic energy, not one-half of the mass times the square of velocity. Also give the units of the quantity. Meaning Units a. W _________________________ ________________ b. P _________________________ ________________ c. E _________________________ ________________ d. u
AC 2009-815: USE OF THE KNOWLEDGE AND SKILL BUILDER (KSB)FORMAT IN A SENIOR MECHANICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORYCharles Forsberg, Hofstra University Charles H. Forsberg is an Associate Professor of Engineering at Hofstra University, where he teaches courses in computer programming and the thermal/fluids area of mechanical engineering. He received a B. S. in Mechanical Engineering from the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn (now Polytechnic Institute of NYU), and an M. S. in Mechanical Engineering and Ph. D. from Columbia University. He is a Licensed Professional Engineer in New York State. Page
form of the mechanism, students are required to use one simulation software,such as ADAMS, to build a virtual prototype for simulating the mechanism model and theend trajectory. Fig. 5 gives some available options that students can refer to. Thus, the“handwriting robot” is embedded into the teaching process of theoretical curriculum. At thesame time, students are able to access to at least one engineering software, which can helpthem apply their engineering knowledge in practice. (a) (b) (c) Fig. 5 Mechanisms capable of linear motion. (a) slider crank mechanism (b) screw mechanism (c) rack and pinion mechanismMechanical DesignThis course generally covers
guidingprinciples for online learning, we can ensure a viable student experience.Transformation to online learningThe Nanotechnology CourseIntroduction to Nanotechnology course was designed as an undergraduate engineering elective toexpose students to the material opportunities offered at the nanometer scale. The course contentis divided into (a) fundamentals, (b) tools for synthesis and characterization, and (c) applicationsof nanomaterials within devices and more broadly technology. Principles of Nanotechnologycourse is a graduate level course that is combined with the undergraduate course. Graduatestudents complete additional assessments that go beyond the undergraduate level assignments.The lecture content, however, is identical between the
overall academic experiences and outcomes. Such data reveal theneed for faculty members to consider the limitations and constraints of integrating such projectsand generate proactive solutions to remedy such issues. Furthermore, the intentional inclusion ofprojects in a virtual setting to help simulate in person experiences can greatly benefit students’acquisition of engineering related skills and competencies along with faculty guidance, canencourage them to engage in intentional dialogue with their peers to bolster interpersonal andcritical thinking skills.REFERENCES[1] de Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. (2010b). Learning bygenerating vs. receiving instructional explanations: Two approaches to enhance
corrective actions the instructor took toimprove the lesson on the sensor topic on the second day (second lesson or iteration).For the sensor topic, at the end of the third day (third lesson), the instructor evaluated the overallteaching and learning outcomes. The evaluation was based on (i) the instructor asked the studentsto respond a rubric as given in Appendix B, and (ii) the instructor administered a formal test of thestudents on the entire topic (sensor). Cable to connect with computer Mechanical structure Servomotor Wires Wires Arduino board
0% 75% 25% 100% 60% h 0% 0% 0% 0% Exemplary i 0% 67% 33% 100% 50% Acceptable j 0% 0% 0% 0% Unsatisfactory k 7% 63% 33% 102% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% a b c d e
design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data to support the mechanical Criterion 3 Outcome (b) engineering design or problem solving process. An ability to communicate effectively with clear, critical thinking skills required of a junior Army officer and within Criterion 3 Outcome (g) the context of solving mechanical engineering problems. A knowledge of contemporary issues and an understanding of the impact of engineering solutions on the Army, the Criterion 3 Outcomes (h) and (j) nation, and in global contexts. An ability to continuously improve and engage in life-long
go beyond the minimum requirements, they mustprovide any specialized sensors or actuators. B. Open Design Deliverables and TimelineTo facilitate progress and promote project management, the project is divided into fivedeliverables: project proposal, executive summary, mechanical prototyping, electronics and basiccode functionality, and final presentation. These deliverables guide the students through the designprocess from conception to presentation in a manner that is educational and professional. Moredetails of the deliverables are listed in Table 2.Table 2: Deliverable Assignments for Open Design Project Deliverable Description Completion
xe L1 cos 1 L2 cos 1 2 (1) ye L1 sin 1 L2 sin 1 2 Page 22.480.5 b) Inverse kinematics 1 sign( 2 ) 2 a tan 2 D, 1 D 2 where (2) xe2 ye2 L12 L22 x 2 y 2 L2 L2 D , a tan 2( ye , xe ), cos 1 e e
semester hours for ET programs, with no specifics for E programs. SomeInstitutions defer the Humanities and Social Science electives to the senior year in order tointroduce as many technical courses as possible during the first two years. If one assumes asomewhat uniform distribution of the semester credit hours over an undergraduate careerspanning 8 semesters, the number of credits per semester will range between 15 and 18 hours.The proposed two-year template ranges between 65-68 credit hours and is given in Table 2. Table 2. A 2-year Template for ME and MET Programs. Format: Course (a, b) where a=number of lecture hours; b=number of lab hours Term 1 Term 2 Term 3 Term
, VU Senior Design faculty have a weekly meeting to discuss projectperformance and calibrate general grading strategies between faculty members. Additionally,grading rubrics have been created for all assignments (see Appendix B for an example rubric).To eliminate conflicting comments and grades when evaluating oral presentations, eachindividual faculty advisor collates all comments and grades from all faculty members andforwards one grade and screened comments to the appropriate team. Finally, Senior Designfaculty participate in a calibration session for writing assignments. During this session, acommon writing assignment is commented and graded. Then, Senior Design faculty discuss theresults with the goal of developing a common grading
BeamThese four modules, as part of the entire set of 12 Finite Element learning modules, are arefreshing first step to filling a current void in engineering education. Their benefits, along withthe assessment methodology developed in this paper, have the potential to be far reaching.Assessment FoundationsHelpful steps to assessments for the FE tutorials are: (a) gathering student demographics (i.e.academic major, educational level, grade point average, expected grade earned in current course,reason for taking course, plans after graduation, age, ethnicity, and gender); (b) gathering Felder-Silverman learning style and MBTI personality type (this analysis, along with learningobjectives, can be reviewed and fed back into improving the learning
provide a rich design problem yet be financiallyfeasible. The argument presented in this paper is that unlike hardware which can be (a) easilybroken by a novice, (b) so underpowered as to provide little interesting challenges or (c)dangerously powerful; a visual simulation can provide a rich learning environment. Fortunately,UTEP has recently been admitted as a PACE partner [3] and one important benefit to thispartnership is that UTEP students and faculty have a virtually limitless supply of certain types ofreal world engineering software. MSC.Adams is one of the software packages that is available.The basic idea described in this paper is to use simulation in the lecture to allow students to do areal design on what appears to be a realistic