setting them up and I never kind of know which formula to use. Like in the exam, I completely forgot how to use the formulas or like what was the correct formula to use? And right now we're doing trusses and frames, so I understand how to find zero force members in theory, but when I do it on a problem it gets a little tougher.” Participant AParticipant B highlighted the difficulties they encountered when applying their understanding ofthe course to solve statics problems: “Yeah, I know the one that's really giving me problems is the integration one, so like, the centroid by integration ones. I think those are really difficult. I understand what we're trying to find, like, we're trying to find the center
the given coordinate system, which is fixed to the car in which 𝐵 is riding. (b) Determine the velocity and acceleration of passenger 𝐵 that passenger 𝐴 observes relative to a coordinate system fixed to the car in which 𝐴 is riding. [1] Figure 1 Relative Motion Problem ExampleIn traditional instructional settings, this concept is often taughtthrough lectures and standard problem sets. While these methods may effectively convey the basicprinciples, they frequently fall short in helping students overcome common misconceptions and indeveloping a deep, intuitive understanding of the subject. This difficulty is exacerbated wheninstruction is primarily content-focused
offer a more comprehensive dataset for analysis. To address this, we have initiated thecollection of multiple student surveys throughout the semester and will report on our findings infuture research publications.References [1] L. Rubin H., P. Manuel J., and B. Cristian C., Computational Physics: Problem Solving with Python. Wiley-VCH, 2007, vol. Second revised and enlarged edition. [2] G. M. Lu, D. R. Trinkle, A. Schleife, C. Leal, J. Krogstad, R. Maass, P. Bellon, P. Y. Huang, N. H. Perry, M. West, T. Bretl, and G. L. Herman, “Impact of integrating computation into undergraduate curriculum: New modules and long-term trends,” in 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference, 2020. [3] A. D. Santo, J. C. Farah, M. L. Martinez, A. Moro, K
between two pie charts indicate statistically significant differentdistributions(* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, and *** p < 0.001); response distributions in charts B/E, and C/F,were not significantly different.approximately 3X less at the end of the semester than the content seen. Students mentionedcourse or engineering descriptions (OE: 30% versus CC: 8%) approximately 3X more than thecourse content, and other applications (OE: 38% versus CC: 10%) was mentioned approximately4X more.Solid MechanicsStudents’ view of the entrepreneurial mindset course integration did not change from the start ofthe semester to the end, but there was a difference between some of the questions (Fig. 1 bottom).At the beginning of the semester students agreed less
-pandemic’, 4 = ‘post-pandemic’. Number of sections taught Course Statics Deformables Dynamics Period 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Inst. A - - - 1 2 - 1 2 - - - - Inst. B - - - - - - - - 4 1 - - Inst. C - - - 2 - - - - - - - - Inst. D 10 - 2 3 8 1 2 2 13 2 3 2 Inst. E 8 1 3 4 3 1 3 4 - - - - Inst
multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52.McMaster, J. M., et al. (2014). A concept inventory for statics: Results and implications. European Journal of Engineering Education, 39(3), 276-289.Michael, J. (2006). Where's the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 30(4), 159–167.Nguyen, M. H., et al. (2019). Virtual labs in engineering education: A study on student performance and engagement. Computers & Education, 140, 103598.Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.Rex, T., McGill, T., & Johnson, B. (2015). Visualizing the Application of Statics Concepts in Engineering Education
CoPilot 30 ChatGPT4o 20 60 1 4 7 10 1 4 7 10 Ordered by instructor score rank Ordered by instructor score rank (a) ENGR 213 (Fall 2022) (b) ENGR 213 (Fall 2024) 100
Paper ID #47674Work In Progress: Torque, Engineering Students, and the Conceptual Shiftfrom External to Internal ForcesMr. Joseph Patrick Coughlin, University of Colorado Denver J. Patrick Coughlin is a doctoral student at the University of Colorado Denver working on Engineering and Engineering Education topics. Patrick taught for nine years in a technology university as an adjunct teacher with interest in early student course work and how students adjust between classes. He is a registered Professional Engineer (PE) in the state of Colorado.Dr. Heather Lynn Johnson Heather Lynn Johnson is a mathematics educator who
Paper ID #48623ACE up your Sleeve: An Analysis of Student Generative AI Usage in anEngineering Statics CourseJacklyn Wyszynski, University of PittsburghDavid Adam DeFrancisis, University of PittsburghDavid Pabst, University of PittsburghMr. Lee Allen Dosse, University of Pittsburgh Lee A. Dosse is a PhD student working with the Engineering Education Research Center at the University of Pittsburgh.Dr. Matthew M. Barry, University of Pittsburgh Dr. Barry is a Visiting Associate Professor in the Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science department at the University of Pittsburgh. His research interests include space power
Paper ID #38157Weekly Quizzes in Lieu of Homework in Large SectionsDr. Anna K. T. Howard, North Carolina State University, Raleigh Anna Howard is a Teaching Professor at NC State University in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering where she has led the course redesign effort for Engineering Statics. She received her Ph.D. from the Rotorcraft Center of Excellence at Penn State University.Azadeh Dashti Cole, North Carolina State University, Raleigh ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 2023 ASEE Annual Conference Weekly Quizzes in Lieu of Homework