October12, 2020].[4] “Homework? What homework? Students seem to be spending less time studying than theyused to,” The Chronicle of Higher Education. Chronicle.com/weekly/ v49/ i15a03501.htm.[5] H. Bembenutty, M.C. White, “Academic performance and satisfaction with homeworkcompletion among college students,” Learning and Individual Differences. vol. 24, pp. 83-88.Elsevier Publishers, 2013.[6] H. Cooper, J.C. Robinson and E.A. Patall, “Does homework improve academic achievement?A synthesis of research, 1987 – 2003,” Review of Educational Research, Vol. 76(1), pp.1-62.,2006.[7] J. McTighe, K. O’Connor, “Seven practices for effective learning,” Educational Leadership,Vol. 63, No.3, spring 2005.[8] M. B. Eberly, S.E. Newton and R. Wiggins, “The syllabus
answer choice Problem levels Primarily intermediate (type B) Fundamental (type A) Process • Learning objectives • Learning objectives differences implicit (similar to implicit (similar to • Learning objectives (LOs) existing textbook existing textbook explicitly developed prior problems) problems) to problems • Students each worked on • Students worked on the • Students worked on the different topics same topics together same LOs, but on different
, determine an expression for the skydiver’s acceleration x ¨.(b) After falling for awhile, the skydiver will approach terminal velocity: the velocity at which they areno longer accelerating. Starting with the expression from part (a), determine this terminal velocity x˙ ⇤ .Exercise 2After free-falling near an initial terminal velocity x˙ ⇤0 , the skydiver deploys a parachute which increases theirdrag coefficient Cd . Determine the distance travelled s until the skydiver is within 10% of the new terminalvelocity x⇤ due to the parachute. Assume that x˙ ⇤0 = 55 m/s, Cd = 40 kg/s, and that the skydiver has yourmass.Exercise 3Express the di↵erential equation for the
Paper ID #34650Cheating and Chegg: a RetrospectiveMr. Eli Broemer, Michigan State University PhD student focused on soft tissue biomechanics.Dr. Geoffrey Recktenwald, Michigan State University Geoff Recktenwald is a member of the teaching faculty in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Michigan State University. Geoff holds a PhD in Theoretical and Applied Mechanics from Cornell University and Bachelor degrees in Mechanical Engineering and Physics from Cedarville University. His research interests are focused on best practices for student learning and student success. He is currently developing and researching
, students reviewed the reading assignments and lessonvideos. Each face-to-face meeting covered two lessons, as both cohorts interchanged meeting daysto accommodate half the registered students and maintain social distancing. Students were askedto come to class prepared with any questions pertaining to the lesson videos and be ready topractice problem solving.The class was scheduled for three days per week, 100 minutes per session. Cohort A met everyMonday, Cohort B met every Friday, and both alternated meeting on Wednesdays. Each cohorthad separate quiz days based on their meeting schedule; both cohorts had the same exam dayswith students spread out in two classrooms to maintain social distancing. Instructors held officehours by appointment, either
analyze theseindicators of student success, we consider student concept inventory performance, course lettergrades, and course percentage grades.Correlation to Student SuccessThe concept inventory covers topics that our students would have seen in both the prerequisiteStatics course and the Strength of Materials course. This makes a comparison between the pretestconcept inventory score and student Statics grades relevant (see Figure 1). Note that these gradesare listed numerically; 4.0 is an “A” grade, 3.5 is a “B” grade, and so forth to 2.0 as a “C” grade.Because the Strength of Materials course prerequisite requires that students pass Statics with a “C”grade, there are no grades lower than 2.0 on the horizontal axis of Figure 1
, 2020.[4] C. Dziuban, C. R. Graham, P. D. Moskal, A. Norberg, and N. Sicilia, “Blended learning: The new normal and emerging technologies,” International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, vol. 15, pp. 1–16, 2018.[5] C. N. Loes, B. P. An, K. Saichaie, and E. T. Pascarella, “Does collaborative learning influence persistence to the second year of college?” Journal of Higher Education, vol. 88, pp. 62–84, 2017.[6] R. A. Streveler, T. A. Litzinger, R. L. Miller, and P. S. Steif, “Learning conceptual knowledge in the engineering sciences: Overview and future research directions,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 97, pp. 279–294, 2008.[7] D. Evenhouse, N. Patel, M. Gerschutz, N
and problem setup B. Solution strategy A.2. Initial conditions A.2. Boundary conditions C. Problem geometry A.3. Modeling and constraints A.3. Kinematics D. Free body diagrams B. Describe position vector C. Free body diagram E. Force equilibrium C. Compute velocity and accel. E.1. Force equilibrium F. Moment equilibrium D. Free body diagrams E.2. Moment equilibrium G. Distributed effects E.1. Balance linear momentum F. Strain-displacement relationships H. Solution process E.2. Balance angular momentum G.1. Constitutive equations I. Internal
assembled work panel , and (b) a folded work panel. Figure 2: (a) A Fully assembled work panel, and (b) a disassembled work panel.In this lighter version of the work panel, various add-on tools, including pulleys, clamps, cords,weights, and weight hangers, can be used to demonstrate statics experiments in two and three-dimensional spaces.The following experiments were demonstrated using the proposed kit: 1. Force equilibrium in two-dimensional spaces 2. Force equilibrium in three-dimensional spaces 3. Demonstration of a vector dot product 4. Demonstration of vector cross product 5. Beam reactions 6. Center of gravity of an area and volume 7. A spaghetti bridge
Access, Virtual On line. 10.18260/1-2—35274[5] Le, X., & Ma, G. G., & Duva, A. W. (2015, June), “Testing the Flipped Classroom Approach in Engineering Dynamics Class,” Proceedings of the 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, Washington. 10.18260/p.24841[6] Swithenbank, S. B., & DeNucci, T. W. (2014, June), “Using a “Flipped Classroom” Model in Undergraduate Newtonian Dynamics,” Proceedings of the 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana. 10.18260/1-2—23249[7] Hassanzadeh Gorakhki, M. R., & Baker, D. W., & Pilkington, S. F. (2019, June), “Evaluating the Effect of Flipped Classroom on Students’ Learning in Dynamics,” Proceedings of the 2019 ASEE Annual Conference
, "Online teaching-learning in higher education during lockdown period of COVID-19 pandemic," International Journal of Educational Research Open, vol. 1, p. 100012, 2020.[6] Z. Zayabalaradjane, "COVID-19: Strategies for Online Engagement of Remote Learners," Online Submission, vol. 9, no. 246, pp. 1-11, 2020.[7] J. E. Nieuwoudt, "Investigating synchronous and asynchronous class attendance as predictors of academic success in online education," Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 15-25, 2020.[8] B. Bruggeman, J. Tondeur, K. Struyven, B. Pynoo, A. Garone, and S. Vanslambrouck, "Experts speaking: Crucial teacher attributes for implementing blended learning in higher
) Group 1 (113 Students) Group 2 (121 Students) 1-11 minutes (Pre-Quiz) Conduct Quiz A Conduct Quiz B 11-40 minutes 1) Review all the concepts in brief (Concepts review) 2) Ask students to solve similar questions 3) Allow peer-to-peer feedback 4) Provide answers and feedback to students’ questions 40-50 minutes (Post-Quiz) Conduct Quiz B Conduct Quiz A Table 1: Intervention Implementation Procedure During a 50-minute lecture.At the beginning of the class, an unannounced pre-quiz was conducted to identify and measurethe concept gap in students’ knowledge. After the pre-quiz, a concept
more square instandard landscape usage. The side panel is highlighted with labels A and B in Figure 1. Studentscan input symbolic or numeric answers, and generalized feedback if given for certain mistakes.Compared to our previous version, we reduced the detail of the scaffolding to try to focus on theproblem solving process rather than the steps to complete a specific problem.Figure 1The interface for solving free body diagrams. (A) Problem image and description. (B) Equations that must be solved andsolutions entered. (C) Instructions on diagram sketching. (D) Sketch, Erase and Clear tools. (E) The sketching canvas.Sketch SurfaceThe remainder of the screen after the side panel is dedicated to the sketching surface. Students areprovided a grid
Paper ID #32957Work-in-Progress: Ambiguous Reaction Couples: A Universal Approach toAnalyzing Bearing and Hinge Support Reactions in 3DStatically-Determinate ProblemsDr. Amir H. Danesh-Yazdi, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology Dr. Danesh-Yazdi is Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Rose-Hulman Institute of Tech- nology.Dr. Shraddha Sangelkar, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology Shraddha Sangelkar is an Assistant Professor in Mechanical Engineering at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. She received her M.S. (2010) and Ph.D. (2013) in Mechanical Engineering from Texas A&M University. She completed the B
ability of undergraduate students: Association with gender, STEM majors, and gifted program experiences,” Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(4), 313-327, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217722614[6] J. Wai, D. Lubinski, and C.P. Benbow, “Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 817-835, 2009.[7] Sorby, S. A., Educational Research in Developing 3-D Spatial Skills for Engineering Students, International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 31, No. 3, February 2009, pp. 459- 480.[8] Duffy, G., Sorby, S., & Bowe, B. Spatial ability is a key cognitive factor in the representation
Paper ID #34389Hands On Learning in a Remote Introduction to Statics ClassroomEnvironmentProf. Sarah Wodin-Schwartz P.E., Worcester Polytechnic Institute Prof. Sarah Wodin-Schwartz joined WPI in August 2015. While at UC Berkeley for her Ph.D., Prof. Wodin-Schwartz was a teaching assistant for both mechanical and electrical engineering courses including Introduction to Mechatronics for which she received the Outstanding Graduate Student Instructor Award. Before joining WPI, Prof. Wodin-Schwartz spent two years at the technical consulting firm Exponent Inc. where she conducted failure analyses and design evaluations for
use the physical models for theory demonstration,while others use them for hands-on problem-solving; it is unclear whether the physical modelshould be used in classroom demonstration and/or in the laboratory session. This study seeks toanswer whether the use of hand-on problem solving (representing textbook problem) inlaboratory sessions improves comprehension and retention in Dynamics; as well as how tobridge the gap between the textbook problems and commercially available models?ObjectivesThis study aims to introduce and assess hands-on problem-solving in Dynamics for improvedcomprehension and retention. This goal is achieved by following steps: (a) identify the criticalconcepts that students mostly struggle with, (b) select textbook
lectures in engineering dynamics. A radio-frequency wireless technologycalled Classroom Response System (CRS) [12] or Audience Response System [13] wasemployed. The CRS consists of transmitters (nicknamed clickers) and a base. A clicker oftenhas five buttons labeled as A, B, C, D, and E.During a lecture, each student pushes a button (A, B, C, D, or E) on their clicker to respond tomultiple-choice questions the instructor poses and displays on a projector screen in theclassroom. The collective response from all students is immediately displayed on the projectorscreen. The students and the instructor can see the number or percentage of students who chooseA, B, C, D, and E, respectively. The clickers provide immediate feedback and real
form of breakout rooms or smallgroups in which students can explain their reasoning to each other).3. Course Structure and Management of Learning CyclesDuring the Fall 2020 semester, the principal course instructor used the Master Based Learningmethod for the first time, using his section of Statics with a total enrollment of 49 students (39male, 10 female). The course was divided into 15 topics or “modules”, but some were combinedfor testing purposes, yielding 13 Mastery Test Levels. In order to earn a given letter grade (A, B,C, D; the institution does not use +/-), the student is required to pass each test corresponding tothe grade level, as well as all tests corresponding to the lower grade levels. Approximately onenew module is delivered
regarding the mode of instruction being used for this course? I would like it to be kept online with weekly online meetings I would like it to be kept online with weekly in-person meetings I would like it to be entirely in-person 4. How well is the online mode of instruction working out for you? Able to follow, no major issues Able to follow but major difficulties/issues. Unable to follow, need in-person instruction (a) (b) (c) (d)Figure 1. Results of the initial poll related to (a) residence (b) enrollments (c) preferences regarding modeof instruction
. Hilton, "Work in Progress: Developing Mechanics of Materials Skills through an Integrated Prototyping Project". 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access, Virtual On-line, June 2020. ASEE Conferences, 2021[2] L. W. Anderson and B. S. Bloom. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman, 2001.[3] C. M. Halupa, and B. W. Caldwell., "A Comparison of a Traditional Lecture-Based and Online Supplemental Video and Lecture-Based Approach in an Engineering Statics Class." International Journal of Higher Education, vol 4, no. 1, pp. 232-240, 2015[4] G. B. Wright, "Student-centered learning in higher education." International Journal of Teaching and
?Students experience a rhythm of class-homework-class-homework etc. But a flipped class musthave class-homework-prep-class-homework-prep etc. Students ask, “What’s my homework?”Teachers answer, you need to do these problems AND this prep before the next class.A course designed around days obscures the need to do both the homework problems and thepreparation for the next day. For example, does the preparation for Day 6 go with Day 5 or Day6? If it’s with Day 5, the preparation material is hard to find when reviewing Day 6 material. Butif it’s with Day 6, it doesn’t look like homework to do on Day 5. Appendix B shows apreliminary sketch from the team showing the learning objects with various break points.We decided to leave the prep work with the day
, “Conceptual and Procedural Approaches to Mathematics in the Engineering Curriculum: Student Conceptions and Performance,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 101, no. 1, pp. 138–162, 2012.[3] R. A. Streveler, T. A. Litzinger, R. L. Miller, and P. S. Steif, “Learning Conceptual Knowledge in the Engineering Sciences: Overview and Future Research Directions,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 97, no. 3, pp. 279–294, 2008.[4] T. J. Moore, R. L. Miller, R. A. Lesh, M. S. Stohlmann, and Y. R. Kim, “Modeling in Engineering: The Role of Representational Fluency in Students' Conceptual Understanding,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 102, no. 1, pp. 141–178, 2013.[5] B. P. Self, J. M. Widmann, and G. C. Adam, “Increasing
the reports. For example, this was a statement in oneof the discussions of hardness testing of metals: “The original hypothesis stated that if theAluminum 2024-T351 specimens were harder than the Steel C 1010 specimens, then the moreforce would be needed to indent the aluminum specimens.” The issue with this statement is thatin the Rockwell Hardness B scale test performed in the lab, the magnitude of the force isconsistent for all the specimens, and the hardness is correlated with the level of indentation.3.2.Technical ContentThe themes in the Technical Content domain are those that are concerned with correctapplication of the technical standards and theory. Students’ writing revealed the two themes of“Accurate and precise explanation of
years the CPs have been offered in staticsat a large R1 university in the southeast (Institution B). The results that are provided are from statics forthe past two years and for dynamics and deformable solids for the past four years. The populationbreakdown for each course is given in Table 3. Table 3. Student population. Breakdown by course for the number of students that have completed the CPs, the number of semesters included in the sample, when instruction took place, and where instruction took place. Number of Number of Semesters Course Institution
, frame analysis B 𝑧 𝑥 A 𝑦 (b) (a) (c)Figure 1. Example vector activity. (a) System diagram. (b) Model. (c) Sample studentsubmission of photo demonstrating their understanding of coordinate direction angles.Figure 1 is an excerpt from a week 2 activity introducing basic 3D vector concepts and notation.Students perform calculations and answer concept questions related to
and Exposition, Conference Proceedings, 2015, doi: 10.18260/p.24066.[9] E. T. Mullen, “Teaching an engaged analysis class through active learning,” Primus, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 186–200, 2012, doi: 10.1080/10511970.2010.497957.[10] A. J. Kalkstein, “Passing the test : Is self-grading a viable option at west point ?,” 2011.[11] P. Linford, J. Bluman, G. Freisinger, J. Rogers, and B. Novoselich, “The self-evaluation and revision method for homework : a homework method for metacognition improves post- secondary engineering students ’ attitudes towards homework The self-evaluation and revision method for homework : a homework method for metacognition,” in ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference
).Recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarilyreflect the views of the National Science Foundation. We also express our sincere thanks to thefaculty at Cal Poly who helped us deploy the surveys and to the students who agreed to take thesurvey.References[1] R. R. McCrae and O. P. John. An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journalof Personality, 60(2):175–215, 1992.[2] S.D. Gosling, P. J. Rentfrow, and W. B. Swann. A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6):504–528, 2003.[3] A.L. Duckworth, C. Peterson, M. D. Matthews, and D. R. Kelly. Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and
collaborative activities among students and teachers throughthe use of Think-Pair-Share techniques,” International Journal of Computer Science Issues(IJCSI), 2010 Sep 1;7(5):18.[2] Kaddoura M. “Think pair share: A teaching learning strategy to enhance students' criticalthinking,” Educational Research Quarterly, 2013 Jun;36(4):3-24.[3] Stover S, Noel D, McNutt M, Heilmann SG. “Revisiting use of real-time polling for learningtransfer,” Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 2015 Jun 30:40-60.[4] Wilson SG. “The flipped class: A method to address the challenges of an undergraduatestatistics course,” Teaching of Psychology, 2013 Jul;40(3):193-9.[5] Love B, Hodge A, Grandgenett N, Swift AW. “Student learning and perceptions in a flippedlinear
unlimited.References[1] https://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accrediting-engineering- programs-2019-2020/#GC3[2] Dillon, J., & Cheney, J. (2009, June), “Building The Team: Assessing Two Design Group Formation Methodologies,” Proceedings of the 2009 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Austin, Texas. 10.18260/1-2—5400[3] Schuster, P., & Cooper, L. A., & Elghandour, E., & Rossman, E. W., & Harding, S., & Self, B. P. (2020, June), “Senior Capstone Team Formation Based on Project Interest: Team Selection by Students Compared with Team Selection by Instructors,” Proceedings of the 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference, Content Access, 10.18260/1-2—35187[4] Karimi, A., & Manteufel, R