Paper ID #45375Assessing ABET SO6 through Innovative Labs in Solid Mechanics: A comprehensiveguide for Mechanical Engineering InstructorsProf. Kapil Gangwar, Wentworth Institute of Technology Kapil Gangwar is an assistant professor of mechanical engineering at Wentworth Institute of Technology with a background in materials, mechanics and manufacturing.Dr. Gloria Guohua Ma, Wentworth Institute of Technology Gloria Ma is a Professor in the Mechanical Engineering program at Wentworth Institute of Technology. She is actively involved in community services of offering STEM workshops to middle- and high-school girls. Her
0 -0.5 -1 -1.5 A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D+ E W Final Grade Figure 1: Average Sentiment Score by Final Grade EarnedThere is a clear trend that students who earned high grades had higher sentiment scores meaningthat students who earned A grades expressed the most positive sentiment in their reflections.These student’s comments often included statements about their confidence with the material orgetting the correct answer. There was a steady decrease in
on one part of the car. • The smallest speed would be B in this one because B is toward the center and A C and D will have the same. • Which has the smallest speed. A B C or D … wow this is what got me in Physics, I really need to review this. Um I think A C and D speed … but B … No they might just all have the same speed if we’re looking at … yeah … I’m going to say they have … I’m going to say E • The “S” and “L” component of velocity based on the tire’s movement. Since it’s in the very center basically everyone one of them is moving at B, the velocity of the car, but each has their own velocity of the tire s well, except for B.Correct Responses • Nothing was said aloud – scored as incorrect
i iii (b) (a) (b) Figure 1. SolidWorks rendering of the Figure 2. SolidWorks rendering of the handheld tool (a), and exposed internal internal structure with dowel pin (a) features of manufactured parts (b). and manufactured internal structure (b). Table 1. Outline of components and design updates for the handheld tool. Component Label Qty Design Updates Handle housing i 4 Updated to match the redesigned internal structure
includestwo questions that can be compared from Concept 3. Concept Warehouse Question 7376 Concept Warehouse Question 7377 Figure 2: Examples of two RBDCI questions for Concept 3The results are summarized for these two Concept 3 questions in Table 6. Table 6: Comparison of student responses for Concept 3 questions Answer Question 7376 Question 7377 A 13 9 B 8 1 C 13 28 D 3 0 Total No
. It is worth noting, that while students anticipate using fluidmechanics (26%), thermal sciences (32%), and electronic integration and control (41%) least,these are at similar levels. This relatively even distribution of lower usage is likely informed bythe types of jobs our students did on their Co-op the summer prior to this survey. A BFig 1. A) Thematic coding shows that students have a high-level understanding of mechanical engineering at the start of this project B) The majority of our student expect to use solid mechanics in their future careers more than other sub-disciplines.Despite this clear weighting of the importance of solid mechanics in
promote higher education access for underrepresented students. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 2(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014327 20Love, D. (2024). Empowering All Learners: The Transformative Journey Toward Equity- Centered Education. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 28(1), 1–7.Martin, F., Oyarzun, B., & Sadaf, A. (2023). Higher Education Instructor Perception of Helpfulness of Inclusive and Equitable Online Teaching Strategies. Online Learning, 27(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v27i4.4019Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: A
. American Psychological Association (APA), pp. 906–911, Oct. 1979. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.34.10.906.[2] T. A. Litzinger et al., “A Cognitive Study of Problem Solving in Statics,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 99, no. 4. Wiley, pp. 337–353, Oct. 2010. doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01067.x.[3] J. Dunlosky, K. A. Rawson, E. J. Marsh, M. J. Nathan, and D. T. Willingham, “Improving Students’ Learning With Effective Learning Techniques,” Psychological Science in the Public Interest, vol. 14, no. 1. SAGE Publications, pp. 4–58, Jan. 2013. doi: 10.1177/1529100612453266.[4] A. J. Sebesta and E. B. Speth, “How Should I Study for the Exam? Self-Regulated Learning
upon insubsequent courses, ideally to higher Bloom’s levels [8]. Modeled after Analysis, Design,Development, Implementation, and Evaluation (ADDIE) model [1], this analysis is presented asvisual, hierarchical maps of course topics, sub-topics, and subordinate skills(concepts/procedures) that students must master in one course to be successful in the next. Here,we describe (1) the development of learning maps for the Physics-Statics course sequence, (2)the use of these maps to identify areas where knowledge transfer is expected, and (3) the designof a new instrument to assess students’ knowledge transfer from physics to statics based on thisanalysis. Refer to [7] for details on the full scope of the NSF-IUSE LMap project. B. MotivationThe
] "Just-in-Time Teaching (JiTT)," V. U. C. f. Teaching, Ed., ed.[3] S. Simkins and M. Maier, Just-in-time Teaching: Across the Disciplines, Across the Academy. Stylus, 2010.[4] J. L. Riskowski, "Teaching undergraduate biomechanics with Just-in-Time Teaching," Sports Biomechanics, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 168-179, 2015/04/03 2015, doi: 10.1080/14763141.2015.1030686.[5] M. Prince, "Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research," Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 93, no. 3, pp. 223-231, 2004, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x.[6] R. M. Felder, R. Brent, and B. A. Oakley, Teaching and Learning STEM : A Practical Guide. Newark, UNITED STATES: John Wiley &
Paper ID #46386Reflecting on Ten Years of Building a Community of Practice for TeachingInnovations in Fundamental Mechanics CoursesWayne L Chang, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Dr. Wayne Chang is an assistant teaching professor in the Aerospace Engineering Department at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He received his BS, MS, and Ph.D. in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering from the University of California, Irvine.Mikayla R Hoyle, University of Illinois at Urbana - Champaign Mikayla R. Hoyle is a PhD student in the Dept. of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering at the University of illinois Urbana
unable todemonstrate the basic concepts of these courses in later courses. The mastery-based assessmentforces students to demonstrate mastery of each learning outcome rather than just achieving asatisfactory score on a time limited exam. This significantly improves the students’ ability tomaster the essential concepts of Statics and Dynamics [5], [6].DescriptionThe mastery-based assessment structure used in Statics at Angelo State University is adaptedfrom the model developed by Papadopoulos et al. [5]. The most current version of this structureis outlined in Table 2, which details the mastery levels, associated topics, homeworkassignments, and prerequisites for each level. The mastery system is organized into four levels:D, C, B, and A. For
Paper ID #46684Six Statics Activities in a Shoebox KitDr. Christine F. Goble, Centre College Christine Goble is an Associate Professor of Engineering at Centre College. She completed her bachelor’s and master’s degrees at the University of Kentucky and Ph.D. at Purdue University. She has 27 years of engineering education experience. Christine is actively engaged in developing an engineering degree program and educator training tools.Dr. Martha E. Grady, University of Kentucky Dr. Martha E. Grady (Meg) is the Associate Chair of the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering and Associate Professor at the
Paper ID #39879Mechanics in Rome: First Time for a New Study Abroad ProgramDr. Brian P. Self, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Brian Self obtained his B.S. and M.S. degrees in Engineering Mechanics from Virginia Tech, and his Ph.D. in Bioengineering from the University of Utah. He worked in the Air Force Research Laboratories before teaching at the U.S. Air Force Academy for seven years. In 2011-12, Brian did a professor exchange in Munich, and in 2017 an exchange in Karlsruhe Germany. Additionally, he established a Mechanics in Rome study abroad program that ran for the first time in Fall 2022
Paper ID #43567A Secure, Scalable Approach to Student-Graded Homework for Self-ReflectionDr. Matthew Jordan Ford, University of Washington Matthew J. Ford (he/him) received his B.S. in Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science from the University of California, Berkeley, and went on to complete his Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering at Northwestern University. After completing a postdoc with the Cornell Active Learning Initiative, he joined the School of Engineering and Technology at UW Tacoma to help establish its new mechanical engineering program. His teaching and research interests include solid mechanics, engineering
Paper ID #40206The Role of Spatial Ability in a Statics and Mechanics of Materials CourseDr. Maxine Fontaine, Stevens Institute of Technology Maxine Fontaine is a Teaching Associate Professor in Mechanical Engineering at Stevens Institute of Technology. She received her Ph.D. in 2010 from Aalborg University in Aalborg, Denmark. Maxine has a background in the biomechanics of human movement, and ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 The Role of Spatial Ability in a Statics and Mechanics of Materials CourseAbstractStrong spatial visualization skills are critical to
Paper ID #41057Assessing the Efficacy of a Pedagogy in an Online Mechanics of MaterialsCourse with EFL StudentsDr. Adrian Rodriguez, The University of Texas at Austin Adrian Rodriguez is an Engineering Content Developer for zyBooks, a Wiley brand and a Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering at The University of Texas at Austin. His research interests include engineering education, multibody dynamics, contact and impact with friction, electro-mechanical systems, and nonlinear dynamics. He earned his B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering from The University of Texas at Austin and his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Mechanical
Paper ID #43404Paper or Silicon: Assessing Student Understanding in a Computer-basedTesting Environment Using PrairieLearnMr. Jamal Ardister, Michigan State UniversityDr. 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 EngineeringSara Roccabianca, Michigan State University Sara Roccabianca is an Associate Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Michigan State University
Paper ID #45896Closing Equity Gaps in Statics for BIPOC Students with a Free-Body DiagramsAppDr. Andrew R. Sloboda, Bucknell University Andrew Sloboda is an Assistant Professor at Bucknell University where he teaches a variety of mechanics-based courses, including statics, solid mechanics, fluid mechanics, dynamics, system dynamics, and vibration. His research interests lie primarily in the fields of nonlinear dynamics and engineering education.Prof. 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
Paper ID #46772Work in Progress: Assessing the Impact of Spatial Skills on Performance ina Statics CourseRosemary Yahne, Utah State University Rosemary Yahne is an undergraduate student at Utah State University. She plans to graduate with a Bachelor of Science in civil engineering with a minor in geology. Her research interests include spatial ability impact on various groups in engineering.Daniel Kane, Utah State University Daniel Kane is a third-year Ph.D. student in the department of engineering education at Utah State University. His research interests include spatial ability, accessibility for students with
The intention is for students to draw mental or actual FBDs of various joints, make qualitative determinations about the modality of the member, and then continue to another joint to complete the analysis. Frames and Machines “Member ABC is embedded in the concrete wall at A. Member DBE is pin connected at D and B is connected to a rope at E that runs over the pulley at C. Assume that friction can be neglected at all connections. Suppose your goal is to determine the magnitude of the force5134 exerted on member ABC at pin B. Which free-body
-conceptual, indicating thatstudents better understood the material than their solutions showed. The literature reviewhighlights the role of effective pedagogy and activities in nurturing engineering judgment,qualitative reasoning abilities, design skills, and self-confidence.3. Pedagogy3.1. Traditional method – The concept of tipping moment calculationThe concept of tipping moment calculation uses a point or an axis about which the rigid bodywill rotate when the force is applied. For determining the impending tipping condition, it uses theequilibrium equation.Let us consider a table shown in Fig. 1(a), whose free-body diagram is shown in Fig. 1(b). Then,the moment equilibrium equations for the free-body diagram is: åM
protocol as the study in [2] and were from the same pool ofrecruitment.Figure 1: The question of interest, “the rigid body beam” question (ConcepTest #4660)Think Aloud ProtocolThirteen students were asked the rigid body beam question (Figure 1). The correct answer to thisconcept question is the last answer option: “The magnitude will increase, and the direction willchange such that the angle (measured CCW) between the force at A and line AB increases.” Theresearch team is interested if the student will draw a free body diagram and elect to summoments about either point A or B to determine their answer. When looking at equations ofequilibrium, students should recognize the applied moment about both A and B due to F1 willincrease. If they sum
to explore the relationship between problem-solving skills andconceptual understanding.The three teaching styles examined in this study are: (A) a flipped, recitation-based classroomwith a mastery-based derivation approach, (B) a lecture-style class using the SMART (SupportedMastery Assessment through Repeated Testing) approach, and (C) a lecture-style class with threelevels of student participation to engage both reflective and active learners. We analyzed studentperformance data from exams and concept inventory questions to address the following researchquestions: (I) Do problem-solving skills differ among students taught with different approaches?(II) How does conceptual understanding vary among students in different teachingenvironments
an overhang above a doorway. Foreach problem, three images of the scenario were developed: a photograph of the system (lowabstraction), a line drawing of the system (medium abstraction), and a line-drawn image of thesystem in which most details identifying it as a real-world object were removed (highabstraction). Figure 1 shows the images used at each level of abstraction for each of the threeproblems.Students in a first-year course, who had just learned to draw FBDs (the assessment was justprior to their first exam on the topic), and students in a third-year course, who wereexperienced with FBDs, were asked to draw FBDs for these problems. Each student populationwas randomly divided into three groups: A, B, and C. Each group saw each of the
mass of the rigid body. Question 15 Figure 2: Question 15 from DCI This question tackles the concept of force acting on a body and how a constant force might affect the path of the body.General Performance ResultsGeneral scoring of student answers to these two questions for before and after a dynamics course areindicated in Figure 3 below. For question 11, about rigid body motion with a force applied, indicates onlyabout one-third of the students answered correctly. The most common distractor answers were B and D. Pre-Course Results Post-Course Results c
Samplemodes during operation [4], the handheld tool will materialaccomplish this by way of removable pieces (the central Strain gaugesteel shaft and pins) and interlocking elements (slots and areaholes in the central steel shaft and keyed features in the Handleshandles). The removable central steel shaft with a machinedslot and removable pin are shown in Figure 4(a). Figure 4(b)shows the other end of the central steel shaft with amachined hole and another removable pin. The pins couplethe handle and sample material to the central steel shaft. Thekeyed rectangular feature shown in Figure 4(c) couples thehandles to the sample material.When the
problem. The scoring rubric is: a – complete and correct, b – minor calculation error, c –minor conceptual error, d - major conceptual error, and e – no evidence shown. The total numberof assessment opportunities include five problems during the semester, one at the end of eachmodule, and three additional problems on the final exam making a total of eight problems thestudents are tested on throughout the course. Over the eight assessment opportunities, eachstudent’s demonstration of mastery for each objective is recorded and accumulated. Mastery ofan objective is awarded to a student once they have shown that they can do an objective correctlyfour times. This means that they must do the objective correctly on four different problemsthroughout the
acceptable,as the goal of this study is to develop an initial, exploratory understanding of how our 3D modelsinfluence Statics problem-solving, rather than to generalize to broader populations.MaterialsTwo similar 3D statics problems were developed for this study. Figure 2 shows the 2D isometricimages of the system and their problem statements. These problems share similar componentssuch as supported by journal and thrust bearings, a cable or a strut, distributed forces, and oneconcentrated force. A plate ABCD is rigidly connected to a cylindrical rod. This rod-plate structure is then supported by a journal bearing at A, a thrust bearing at B, and a cable tied between point C to E. It is assumed that the cable is pinned to something rigid at
errors, in turn, resulted inusers obtaining inaccurate responses. Examples of successful and unsuccessful problem solutionsare included below. Full solutions from ChatGPT are included in Appendix B.• Example problems for which ChatGPT provided correct responses: o Statics ➢ The bending moment on a beam is given by 𝑀 = −4𝑥 3 + 3𝑥 2 − 23𝑥 + 5 N.m, calculate the shear force at 𝑥 = 3 m. (Correct Answer: V = 113 N; ChatGPT answer: 113 units [whatever the units of the bending moment are]) o Dynamics ➢ The position of a particle is given by 𝑠[𝑡] = 𝑡 3 − 12𝑡 2 + 44𝑡 + 11 m, calculate the acceleration value at 𝑡 = 5 s. (Correct Answer: a = 6 m/s2; ChatGPT answer: acceleration at t=5s