NASA (John Glenn, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Ames Research Center, and the Johnson Space Center) and the U.S. Navy (SPAWAR). She held a Fulbright fellowship at the Center for Wireless Communications (CWC) at the University of Oulu in Finland. She has received teaching excellence awards from her Division and the College of Engineering. She has received funding for her research from the NSF, the US Navy, NASA, and the business community. She is an ABET IEEE ETAC Commissioner and an active program evaluator.Dr. Feng Jao, Ohio Northern University Page 24.358.1 c American Society for
laboratory sessions.This activity allows engagement of students in step 3 of the Kolb cycle, practice underconstrained conditions. The two-hour laboratory contains a maximum section size of 24 students.A worksheet is provided to students for each laboratory. The worksheet is designed to both as ascaffold for students to direct them through the laboratory tasks and as a tool to provideopportunities for reflection on the meaning of the tasks in terms of the course content. Studentshave to complete worksheets individually, but are encouraged to collaborate and discuss amongstone another.The course instructor typically introduces the laboratory and periodically checks in; however, itis primarily instructed by a Graduate Teaching Assistant. In 2008, an
training. Engineering laboratories mayinvolve measurement of dynamic processes since physical quantities measured bysensors such as temperature, humidity, pressure, displacement, voltage, current,etc., are continuous in nature. To improve the quality of measurement data thereis a need to remove unwanted signals associated with the measured input signal;hence self-compensation algorithms are formulated for implementation in thesensor nodes. It is noted that presentations that use both visual and auditory stylesreinforce learning for most students. Indeed, students’ learning may be motivatedand students’ engagement and comprehension of fundamental engineeringprinciples (or concepts) may be increased by a teaching style that balancesconcrete
of the four theme areas identified specific tasks forjoint investigation and development with parallel efforts at each of the participatingschools. Curriculum initiatives include defining and validating the outcomes of anengineering program, early engineering experiences, disciplinary linkages, integrateddesign-build experiences, and CDIO skills education. Teaching and Learning identifiedconcrete (hands-on) learning, problem formulation, active learning, feedback, and researchinto teaching and learning approaches. The Laboratories and Workshops group isfocusing on models for building and furnishing workshops and laboratories, and researchinto best practices in the use of laboratories for engineering education. Finally,Assessment reform
Session 2659 Facilitating Interdisciplinary Hands-on Learning using LabStations Lawrence E. Carlson, Lee D. Peterson, Walter S. Lund & Trudy L. Schwartz Integrated Teaching and Learning Program College of Engineering and Applied Science University of Colorado at BoulderAbstractCulminating five years of planning by faculty and students, the Integrated Teaching andLearning (ITL) Laboratory opened its doors in January 1997. One of the goals of the newfacility is to link theory and experimentation in a hands-on way. Custom designedLabStations facilitate this goal with the capability to
. She has received her Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from Georgia Tech in 2005. In addition, she has worked for over 6 years as a hardware designer and communications analyst at IBM and Compaq Computer respectively. Her research has been on communication networks and protocols, including wireless networks and Internet telephony. Page 13.854.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2008 Life-long Learning Starts In ClassroomsAbstract This paper presents the result of our experiment in a sophomore Circuit Analysiscourse using the learning-through-teaching method. The main goals of
to the laboratory environment,where the students can be considered employees. The design laboratories are in and ofthemselves safe areas, with no prominent dangers. The proper safety equipment is available tothe students, and it is enforced that they utilize it whenever working with the tools. As Heathsuggests, these precautions mean nothing if a tool is being used improperly or unsafely7. Thiscan only be affected by giving knowledge to the individuals who will be operating the tools: thestudents. It has been emphasized for over twenty-five years that “training remains thefundamental method for effecting self-protection against workplace hazards” 8.Teaching students about the safety issues associated with designed projects is also an
Mississippi State University and his MS and PhD degrees from the California Institute of Technology. Prof. Koenig teaches introductory courses in aerospace engineering and flight mechanics, and upper division courses in aerodynamics and propulsion. His research areas include rocket and scramjet propulsion and sports equipment engineering.Christopher Hamm, Mississippi State University Chris Hamm is a first year graduate teaching assistant in the aerospace engineering laboratories. He obtained his BS degree in aerospace engineering from Mississippi State University, and is currently enrolled as a candidate for a master of science degree. He assists in teaching upper division laboratory classes and
programmable platforms to develop a graduate level coursefor Computer Engineering curriculum to bridge the gap between computer engineers andsoftware developers. This course would allow students from engineering and computer sciencemajors to be able to develop and implement applications on FPGAs using Python programminglanguage and overlays that are similar to software libraries. This paper describes our experiencein teaching the students to develop applications on the new PYNQ platform. The paper isorganized as follows: the next section describes the main features of the PYNQ Platform courseand introduces our integrated lecture / learning activity / laboratory approach. Then we talk aboutthe teaching tools in the form of hardware and software that we
,” International Conference on Engineering Education Proceedings, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, August 17-20, 1998.10. Kemeny, John, and Zeitler, Bryan, “An Online Geo-mechanics Course with a Virtual Rock Lab Based on Streaming Audio and Vector Graphics,” American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference Proceedings, Albuquerque, NM, June 24 - 27, 2001.11. Aleni, Morteza, and Barnes, Robert, “ A Multimedia Soil Mechanics Laboratory Software Development for Teaching and Learning Purposes,” International Conference on Engineering Education Proceedings, Ostrava, Czech Republic, August 10 - 12, 1999.12. Masala, Srloljub, Biggar, Kevin, and Geissler, Colin “The Geotechnical Virtual Laboratory,” American Society for
; the third site was aquadrangle on campus; the fourth site was near a food truck parked and in operation on campus;the fifth site was a car parking garage to simulate traffic inputs; and the sixth location was insideof a building on campus to evaluate indoor air quality.If field experiences are not practical, other forms of teaching field exercises could be evaluatedfor implementation into an existing laboratory or classroom curriculum. Virtual simulations offield labs can be used1,3,5,9,13. Ramasundaram et al.9 discuss the benefits and problems in usingan environmental virtual field laboratory developed by the authors. Virtual field experiences Proceedings of the 2013 American Society for Engineering Education Pacific Southwest
Development LabSeparate space, called the development laboratory, is used to support the enhancement ofexperiments or to development new experiments. Bench test equipment, balances,computers, power supplies, and other support equipment are available in the developmentlab. Staff OfficesStaffing for the freshmen programs includes managing staff (2), instructional staff(faculty), permanent technical support staff (2.5), graduate teaching assistants (12), andundergraduate teaching assistants. Faculty members are recruited from college faculty,therefore office space is not provided to them. All regular staff has offices adjacent to therenovated area
“come alive” through an activity-based engineering statistics course at Western Michigan University. This three-semester hourcourse is structured to include laboratory sessions, workshop sessions, and problem-based lecturesessions. The laboratory activities are intended to provide the student with an opportunity tobecome proficient in designing basic experiments, collecting data, and analyzing problems usingPC-based statistical software. The workshop sessions involve short lecture segments mixed withteam-based problem-solving activities and software tutorials. With the exception of lectureperiods, course sessions do not take place in a classroom, but rather are held in a computer-teaching laboratory or in one of the laboratories managed by the
digital temperature controller, tabletop coating system with ultrasonic spraying system,piston extruder, and other supplementary equipment were all needed for the fuel cell fabrication.The performances of fuel cells were tested using an available power source meter also runningunder Labview. Each group was able to utilize all of the COMER laboratories’ equipment through theassigned experiments. In order to fully understand how to operate the fabrication machines,groups were paired with a teaching assistant who had extensive experience with the specificmachine. For each experiment, the teaching assistant would discuss with groups the broad idea ofhow certain aspects of the experiment related to fuel cell sciences, then go on to show the
discussion rent sessions sections, managing laboratory classes, or handling office hours. 55 min each In the second session, participants choose one of the following topics: teaching problem solving, grading, or handling office hours. Undergraduate Teaching Orientation Graduate Teaching Orientation Practice In small groups (5-7), participants take turns delivering a five-minute explanation on a Teaching topic of their choice. Peers and one trained facilitator act as students during the lesson, 2 hrs then provide written and oral feedback on the teaching.Table 1: Engineering teaching orientations during the Fall of 2017.As seen in Table 1, the new instructor
from the Advanced TechnologicalEducation Program at the National Science Foundation, has addressed this need bydeveloping technician-level educational materials, prototyping a teaching laboratory forplasma-aided manufacturing, and training community college faculty.[1] This paperprovides a summary of PCC’s three-year development and implementation effort.IntroductionThe lack of instructional materials is a major deterrent in developing and implementing atechnician-level course in RF plasma processing at the community college level. Asearch of the literature produced only graduate-level textbooks.[2,3]Equipment needed to implement a teaching laboratory to support a technician-levelcourse was also lacking. Equipment to support simple plasma
Pedagogical Best PracticesAbstractThe pedagogy of laboratory courses has been well discussed in the literature, but the extent towhich these best practices are incorporated into laboratory experiment design varies wildly. AtNortheastern University, various capstone design teams over the years have been tasked withdesigning new experimental apparatus for the undergraduate teaching laboratories along withappropriate lab handouts and other instructional material. In many cases, the students involved inthese projects have taken the lab class for which they are designing the experiment and havereported negative experiences, and therefore are motivated to try to improve the class for futurestudents. Student designed labs have the potential to reduce burden
responsible forthe analysis and design of control circuitry which permits nominal operation of genericpower converters. The laboratory experience will culminate in projects where studentsanalyze, design, simulate and demonstrate power electronics related topics. Each projectwill be carried out by a team of three or four students. The projects and part of thelaboratory experiments will be focused on power applications in the fast growingemerging fields of the renewable industry, such as wind and solar energy or fuel cells.We believe that this will be an efficient approach in teaching power electronics because itcan give the students some of the necessary skills the industry is asking for.1. IntroductionPower electronics is the enabling technology for
. Use of computer technology in the practice of control engineering is widespread. As early as the 1970s, computers were being used to assist teaching control systems. Broome and Woolvetlcreated “[a] program. . . which permits interactive control system design, suitable for use by students either to runtutorial exercises as a back up to lecture material, or to integrate with laboratory work”. The program was writtenin FORTRAN IV for 8K computers such as the Honeywell H3 16. The use of computer for control systemseducation has since then become widespread. According to a survey of control systems curricula by Feliachi 2,“[software packages of a wide variety are being used by most schools. The most popular packages (in frequencyof usage
, there is a widerange of practices in course-specific learning outcomes and teaching practices across theinstitutions. Based on these results, the authors propose improvements to the survey and a widerimplementation of the survey. The authors also propose a preliminary plan to target the UOlaboratory for safety education in chemical engineering.Survey of Safety Education in Chemical EngineeringUsing the SAChE outcomes as a framework, a brief survey was developed in Qualtrics andcompleted by the authors to assess safety learning outcomes in UO laboratories and more widelyacross the chemical engineering curriculum. The complete survey is shown in Appendix A. Inaddition to asking about SAChE outcomes, the survey also examines potential differences
laboratories are favorable and also provide learnerinsight on the new gamified activities introduced within the curriculum. We note severallimitations on the interpretation of these results, the need to collect more data over time and outlinedifferent courses of action for future improvements to these measures. Overall, from positivesurvey results and anecdotal feedback from teaching staff, we are encouraged to pursue moregamified strategies within our first-year curriculum and beyond.2. Setting Context – Classroom Description & Gamified ApproachesThe introduction of project-based learning to evolve our undergraduate engineering designcurriculum at McMaster University, known as “The Pivot” initiative, is leading to large-scalechanges to the
for the laboratory portion waschosen as face-to-face. This is referring to as mixed-mode course delivery. Therefore, the lectureportion was delivered remotely using Zoom meetings. For the laboratory portion, face-to-facelaboratory delivery was offered, but students could choose to stay remote for the laboratory portionas well. For this reason, the laboratory management was challenging. For instance, during theassigned laboratory hours, laboratory instructors had to teach students in the laboratory room as wellas the students who joined the laboratory remotely via a Zoom meeting. During pre-COVID-19 semesters, the available number of kits was close to the maximumenrolled students in one lab section. For example, 18 lab kits can cover one lab
content.For this paper, two student groups, in an EET laboratory experience, are compared based onthe primary metric number of failed attempts to meet circuit board test specifications. Thestudent test body was divided into two groups. A control course section group, where notroubleshooting instruction was given and designated the “As Is” state. The second sectiongroup, “Improved State” was given an extensive troubleshooting methodology as part of theirinitial training. The primary metric, number of failed attempts to meet specification, waschosen as it is easy to measure by student Teaching Assistants (TA) and was also used to assessthe Sigma process capability for each group. The Sigma capability of each group provided afurther measure of the
Blended Learningfor a Large Size Engineering Mechanics Courseaerospace and manufacturing engineering. Before undergraduate students enter their specific spe-cialisation in the third year of their degree, all students within the school are required to completea second-year mechanics course that covers both dynamics and mechanical vibration content. Thetraditional delivery of this course involved face-to-face lectures, break out smaller-sized face-to-facetutorial classes, hands-on laboratory exercises in very small groups supervised by a teaching assistant,and a variety of assessments comprising assignments, class tests, laboratory reports and a final exam.All assessments were submitted and marked in hardcopy format. However, the structure and
with hands-onlaboratory components, practical applications and theoretical concepts covered in classrooms1, 2.A study in a digital logic design (DLD) course concluded that using Programmable LogicDevices (PLD) as a means of practical approach has improved the effectiveness of educationquality in the course3. Nowadays, the engineering problems have become more complicated andcomplex, requiring creative thinking and skilled engineers to solve these problems. The studenteducational experience can be fully supported by offering hands-on laboratory projects as aninteractive and visual computerized teaching tool and these projects are shown to improvestudent understanding of the digital logic circuit concepts4. Also, a hybrid software
to provide training and guest lectures related to the use of the mobile laboratory technology and pedagogy to enhance the ECE curriculum at five different universities.Dr. Craig J. Scott, Morgan State UniversityDr. Jumoke Oluwakemi Ladeji-Osias, Morgan State University Dr. Jumoke Ladeji-Osias is Associate Professor and Associate Chair for Graduate Studies in the Depart- ment of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Morgan State University. She earned in B.S. in electrical engineering from the University of Maryland, College Park and a Ph.D. in biomedical engineering from Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. She coordinates the departmental graduate program and teaches both undergraduate and graduate
. Similarly, Mold Making I and II were taught in the springsemester.Combining the laboratories in this way allowed a different approach to teaching the laboratorysections. Since the enrollment numbers for each section were small, instructors decided thatlaboratory sections of various courses could be offered concurrently. Instead of having dedicatedlab time for each course, they could all be combined (Table 4). Combining the laboratories wasnot as complex as it may appear. Although a student could take nearly any course in anysemester they mostly followed the traditional schedule pretty closely. This meant that in the fallsemester for example, students were either in Machining I, or Die Making I and II. In alaboratory populated by a larger number of
), 503 - 513.4 Rosenquist, M. L., & McDermott, L. C. (1987). A conceptual approach to teaching kinematics. American Journal of Physics, 55(5), 407 - 415.5 Thornton, R. K. & Sokoloff, D. R. (1990). Learning motion concepts using real-time microcomputer-based laboratory tools. American Journal of Physics, 58(9), 858- 867.6 Trowbridge, D. E., & McDermott, L. C. (1980). Investigation of student understanding of the concept of velocity in one dimension. American Journal of Physics, 48(12), 1020 - 1028.7 Van Heuvelen, A. (1991). Learning to think like a physicist: A review of research-based instructional strategies. American Journal of Physics, 59(10), 891 - 897.8 Beichner, R. J. (1996). The
., Prasad, M. and Chassapis, C., “Remotely Accessible Laboratory Approach for Undergraduate Education”, Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference, June 2000, St. Louise, MO.4. Francisco, et. al., “A virtual laboratory for teaching robotics”, International Journal for Engineering Education, Vol. 19(6), 2003.5. Krehbiel, D., Zerger R. and Piper J., “A remote-Access LabVIEW-based Laboratory for Environmental and Ecological Science”, International Journal for Engineering Education, Vol. 19(3), 2003.6. Rohrig, C., “Virtual Lab for Controlling Real Experiments via Internet”, Proceeding of IEEE International Symposium on Computer-Aided-Control System Design, 1999.7. Wells, L. K. and Travis, J., LabVIEW for Everyone – Graphical
of theseaugmented digital communication laboratories, the undergraduate student is seemingly wellprepared for advanced study.AssessmentThe undergraduate digital communications laboratory has used simulations to supplement therequisite hardware laboratory for well over a decade. Therefore, the efficacy of the use ofsimulation cannot be assessed directly. However, Departmental course feedback surveys areused to gauge the response of the student to this approach for the communications laboratory,with questions such as: “What do the hardware laboratory experiments teach you?” and “Howdo the simulation experiments help to explain the results observed in the hardware experiment?”.AcknowledgementElanix, Inc. (www.elanix.com) supports the use of