hassince been eliminated because of the complexity of the figure. B) Proposed for RBDCI A) In Current DCI (Eliminated For Complexity) Image edited from [10] Figure 1: Proposed questions for concept 1 – “Different points on a rigid body have different velocities and accelerations.”Figure 2 contains four questions, two of which come from the current DCI (2B and 2D) and twowhich come from the Concept Warehouse (2A and 2C) for testing Concept 2: “The inertia of a bodyaffects its acceleration and velocity”. Again, these questions are not finalized and are likely not to beused
Test 7 13 Force analysis and balancing A1-C A1-C, Retry P9-C Test 8 14 Cam design P10-C P10-C Test 9 15 Project work days Project skills A2-C, Retry A1-C Test 10 Exam Final project report due Project skills Project skillsCourse grades were determined by the total number of skills mastered during the semester (Tab. 5A).Ohio Northern used a whole letter scale (only A, B, C, etc.). Passing the 5 required testing skills (R1-R5)along with the other Level 1 skills was required to earn a “D”. The inclusion of the computer apps andhomework skills generally improved grades from a
consider the following interrelated open-ended factors: • 2D link profile: Students are not mandated to use any particular type of 2D link profile. However, experience shows that even when no guidance is provided by the instructor on the profile, virtually every group of students employs either the dog bone or rubber band designs, as shown in Figures 2(a)-(b), respectively. • Link profile thickness: Every link is laser cut from a Nylon 6/6 sheet by a technician, so the link material is not a design parameter. However, when submitting their CAD file deliverable, students must select their link thickness from three available options: 0.062”, 0.094”, or 0.124”. A thinner
Figure 1(b). Theyhave seen the material before, and need as much interleaved practice as possible (Rohrer, et al,2015). Spacing effects, or providing multiple, spaced out opportunities for retrieval practice andapplication, have been shown to improve student learning (Bude, 2011).During the first cohort, these “What Approach” problems were simply assigned and discussedduring the first part of the class time, then we would go into specific topics more in depth. Thesetopics still followed a typical linear sequence: particle kinematics, particle kinetics, rigid bodykinematics, then rigid body kinetics. More time was spent on rigid body dynamics, as suggestedby Fang’s (2014) study on what students consider difficult in dynamics classes.After end of
, Salt Lake City, Utah. 10.18260/1-2—30917[6] Xiao, Z., Zuo, S., Zhao, J., Fu, W., Goldstein, M. H., Philpott, M. L., Laystrom-Woodard, J.,Pool, M., Wolters, A., & Woodard, B. S. (2019, June), Understanding Interrelated GrowthMind-set and Academic Participation & Performance Paper presented at 2019 ASEE AnnualConference & Exposition, Tampa, Florida. 10.18260/1-2—33479[7] Anita L. Campbell, Inês Direito & Mashudu Mokhithi (2021), “Developing growth mindsetsin engineering students: a systematic literature review of interventions”, European Journal ofEngineering Education, 46:4, 503-527, DOI: 10.1080/03043797.2021.1903835[8] Sisk, V. F., Burgoyne, A. P., Sun, J., Butler, J. L., & Macnamara, B. N. (2018). “To WhatExtent and Under
group to work on a grant to support change effortsin the department and the college.The future of higher education needs to be considered by everyone in the classroom includingstudents, TAs, and instructors. This study will help us understand, in this particular context, whatsupports our students and how we can design better courses in the middle years of the engineeringdegree.AcknowledgementsWe appreciate the support from our collaborators, Rani El-Hajjar and Clayton Cloutier, at UWMDepartment of Civil & Environmental Engineering. We are grateful for the students whoparticipate in this study and for the faculty, instructors, and teaching assistants who support datacollection efforts.References[1] C. Mischel, L. Wedgewood, B. Bilgin, J
ofinterpretation of standard terminology and sketches. Students are permitted to ask questions aboutthe problem statements to avoid errors due to misinterpretation of the problem. Experience showsthat very few students ask questions of clarification. 1. Calculate the reaction at A. (a) 2F 2. A homogeneous smooth (a) 50.0 lb (b) 6F round ball weighs 50 lb and (b) 57.7 lb F 3F
University of Puerto Rico,Mayagüez, a bilingual, public institution. Instructor B (Batista Abreu) teaches at Elizabethtown College,a small private institution. The study is based on analyzing results from a test question on vectorresultants during the Fall 2023 semester, whose basic form is as follows: A diagram is provided showing two or three vectors, with certain parameters (magnitudes and angles/slopes relative to a set of reference axes) symbolically labeled. A written preamble then specifies the values of the illustrated parameters, but in a manner such that their values do not necessarily correspond to the apparent proportions indicated in the figure. The instructions are then as follows: “(1
to use handheld models[10].The course instructor employed a variety of methods to enhance visualization and hands-onexperiences, as shown in Figure 1, which highlights some approaches used over the past sixyears in this class. These methods included demonstrations with foam models, the use of real-world example pictures, applying augmented reality (AR) for 3D models, and engaging studentswith pool noodles to explore different types of loading and to predict stress, strain, or loadcapacity [11], [12]. (a) (b) (c) (d)Figure 1. Varity of methods using visualization a) real world example of tree under bending, b)wooden model to
map hints system. Areas with green are correct andareas with orange and red show users when they are near, or within, areas that should not beincluded within the system. Users have unlimited attempts to determine the correct body toisolate for the given prompt. (a) (b) (c) (d) Figure 2: Images (a) and (b) show “System Identification” level 02-1. The correct answer isshown with a traced blue outline in (a). An incorrect attempt is shown in (b). Areas highlighted in red and orange in (b) are hint system indications of error used to guide the user to the correct response. Images (c) and (d), from level 02-2, use the same system but the prompt asks for 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
] "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 #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 #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
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
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
specified steel samples on-site. This process utilized an L&LSpecial Furnace Co, Inc furnace and took 16 hours to anneal. The Charpy V-notch samples werenotched using a Blacks Charpy hand operated notch machine. The notch in the additivelymanufactured specimens was included in the CAD file and printed into the specimen. (a) (b) Figure 2: Cylindrical coupon specimen with 3/8 inch 6-point hexed ends: (a) Standard for all metal and printed specimens; (b) modified for polymer and wood specimens. (a) (b) Figure 3: Additively manufactured specimen: (a) CAD model; (b) Final specimenThree unique testing devices
length and width of the ramp are not provided. Labmaterials consist of a load cell, a wooden ramp piece, a lab jack able to adjust the height of theramp, protractors, weights, and base coating materials that attach via Velcro™: plastic, wood,rubber, and outdoor carpet (see figure 1a). Students are prompted to identify the forces in thisscenario and draw a free body diagram. A group discussion occurs after students have theopportunity to think and then identify 1-2 questions. Figure 1: Potential experimental set-ups for the friction lab. (a) Base materials of plastic, wood, rubber, and outdoor carpet can be attached to the weight support with Velcro™. (b) Students can use the angle of the board and slip conditions to calculate the
coursework. Three self-paced, guidedlearning activities systematically address concepts that include: (a) Cartesian components ofvectors, (b) unit vectors and directional angles, (c) addition, (d) subtraction, (e) cross productusing the right-hand rule, (f) angle between vectors using the dot product, and (g) vectorprojections using the dot product.The authors first discuss the app's scaffolding approach with special attention given to theincorporation of Mayer's principles of multimedia learning as well as the use of animations. Theauthors' approach to develop the associated statics learning activities, practical aspects ofimplementation, and lessons learned are shared. The effectiveness of the activities is assessed byapplying analysis of
assessed each week. This allows the students to showmastery on the pieces needed to solve statics problems for different problems on different daysthroughout the entire course [16]. The mastery objectives and a description of their requirementsare shown in Table 1. Table 1. Mastery Objective for Statics including an abbreviated version of the requirements. Objective Student requirements for the objective List the constraints of the problem and any assumptions used to A) Modeling model the system List how force and moment equilibrium will be used to solve for B) Solution strategy the
these models are featured in Figure 3, eachpotentially containing additional vectors, components, or steps that are selectively concealed orrevealed to align with the teaching sequence. Figure 2. Equivalent system process shown through 3D models a) original loading, b) reductionto resultant force and couple-moment, c) resolving resultant couple-moment into components, d)single resultant force at specific coordinates.Figure 3. Examples of 3D CAD models used to introduce and explain various topics: a)coordinate direction angles and in-plane and out-of-plane angles, b) moment about a point usingthe cross product, c) reducing a parallel force system to a single resultant force, d) reducing asystem to a wrench.StaticView creationThe subsequent phase
direction of the resultant moment (see Figure 2). Using the scalarapproach to calculating 2D moments, this requires that students are able to: 1. Identify which force components do and do not cause a moment about the given point. a. Ability to recognize vertical forces that cause moment. b. Ability to recognize horizontal forces that cause moment. 2. Find the moment arm distance for each force component. 3. Determine the direction of each moment of force. 4. Add to find the resultant moment. Figure 2. Exam problem on moments of forces.The errors identified for each of the above skills are summarized in Table 2 below. Again, minorcalculation errors were not included in the analysis
of the Statics Modeling Kit developed by S. Ardakani and Ellis [11]. It wasdesigned to resemble a model of the equilibrium of a rigid body in 3D. It is very simple and easyto set up yet maintains sufficient stability to remain stable throughout the students’ completion ofthe activity. The labeled points A, B, C, and D, shown in Figure 1, are needed when studentscreate force vectors to solve the problem, which will be outlined in the following sections. Thevertical beam is placed at the origin (0,0) on the table by a ball and socket joint. Surrounding itare three pulleys, A, B, and C, with coordinates of (-3, 1, 2.5), (1, -3, 3.5), and (3, 2, 3.5),respectively. Strings are fastened to the top of the beam and rested over the three pulleys
, half the students (Students A and B) used the friction equation F = μN to selectan incorrect answer and the other half (Students C and D) used physical reasoning to select anincorrect answer. Follow-up questions varied based on individual solution paths. For example, ifthe interviewer had an indication an equation was used, they asked the student which, if any,equations were referenced. All students were asked to draw a free body diagram of the systemafter their initial answers.Those who initially referenced an equation to solve the problem were faced with aninconsistency when drawing their free body diagram. The equation implied friction wouldincrease but the free body diagram did not support that result if the mass of the box did notchange
to bemore effective?” was used to collect students’ feedback towards potential future enhancement ofthe implementation of SGAs. Detailed student responses are listed in Appendix B. Some studentsreported that SGAs are more beneficial than other types of homework, that the instructions for theSGAs were clear, and a few students liked the self-grading aspect and found it helpful for learning.However, some students found that the problems were too difficult, suggesting that they should bemore manageable and preferred them as group assignments. Moreover, they expressed a desire forhints, including partial solutions or final answers to be given, or the opportunity to go overproblems in more detail in class.Overall, the feedback provides insights
& Exposition, Tampa, Florida. 10.18260/1-2-33525[2]. Sala, A. L., & Echempati, R. (2011, June), Performance Assessment of Undergraduate Vibrations Course Paper presented at 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Vancouver, BC. 10.18260/1-2—18866[3]. Sridhara, B. S., & White, D. H. (2012, June), Developing Experiments for the Vibration Course with Minimal Expenditure Paper presented at 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, San Antonio, Texas. 10.18260/1-2—21188[4]. Turso, J., & Johnson, D., & Sweeney, S. (2003, June), Development of A Mechanical Vibrations Course for Engineering Technologists Paper presented at 2003 Annual Conference, Nashville, Tennessee. 10.18260/1-2—12653[5
but made substantial modifications tohow they used the models in response to student feedback from fall 2023 and to align more withtheir teaching approach in general. While they planned to have the same total number ofactivities, they adjusted the scope of each worksheet to be more manageable in the class time andemphasized holding a group discussion on the concept questions at the end. They also providedadditional reference photos of completed models and numerical answers for students to use ascheckpoints for understanding during the class period. This allowed groups to evaluate theaccuracy of their work and proceed through with less bottlenecks waiting for instructor feedback.The other instructor (Instructor B) came to this project with