environment, but thought activities in other disciplines possessedmany similar design features. Table 1 illustrates Goel and Pirolli’s twelve features of adesign task with a condensed description of each feature. The letters A- L are used todenote each characteristic, as is the style in Goel and Pirolli’s presentation of the features.Table 1. Goel and Pirolli’s Features of a Design Task Feature Description A. Distribution of Incomplete specification of start and goal state complete information unspecfication of transition between start and goal state. Two types of constraints: 1- Non-negotiable: nomological B. Nature of constraints (natural laws) and 2- Negotiable
Education), Reglamento para elOtorgamiento de Licencias a Instituciones de Educacion Superior en Puerto Rico Núm. 6543, del 31 de octubre de2002. Available Online: http://www.gobierno.pr/NR/rdonlyres/DAE616AC-C05C-4653-A0A3-DB61E4CCD2AC/0/Reglamento_OLA_Sept_2002.pdf[3] Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, see Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs.http://www.abet.org/Linked%20Documents-UPDATE/Criteria%20and%20PP/E001%2008-09%20EAC%20Criteria%2011-30-07.pdf Page 13.1316.9Appendix A: ABET-Format Syllabus Page 13.1316.10Appendix B: CHE/MSACS-Format Syllabus
10-5 100 1000 104 105 106 107 ReBibliography1. Long, Lyle N. and Weiss, Howard, The Velocity Dependence of Aerodynamic Drag: A primer for Mathematicians, The AmericanMathematical Monthly, Vol. 106, No. 2, (Feb., 1999), pp. 127-135.2. Mehta, Rabindra D. and Pallis, Jani M., Sports Ball Aerodynamics: Effects of Velocity, Spin and Surface Roughness. Keynote paperpresented at the Materials and Science in Sports Conference, Coronado, California, April 22, 2001.3. Armenti, Jr., Angelo (editor), The Physics of Sports, Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. (1992).4. Munson, B., Young, D., & Okiishi, T., Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics, John Wiley
-bottom geothermal vents in the Alvin Submarine. As a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers he organized an International Groundwater Symposium and was an associate editor of the Hydraulics Journal. He has supervised civil engineering students in interdisciplinary design projects of Lehigh sports facilities from 1998 to 2005.John Ochs, Lehigh University John B Ochs is Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Lehigh and Director of the Integrated Product Development Program (IPD), which he co-founded with Dr. Watkins in 1994. He is the past chairman of ASEE’s Entrepreneurship Division. From 1985-95 Dr. Ochs did extensive industry consulting and was involved in the start up of three
AC 2008-1711: FLORIDA ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY FORUM: A VEHICLEFOR CHANGEMarilyn Barger, University of South Florida MARILYN BARGER is the Principle Investigator and Executive Director of FLATE, the Florida Regional Center for Manufacturing Education funded by NSF and housed at Hillsborough Community College in Tampa Florida. She earned a B.A. in Chemistry at Agnes Scott College, and both a B.S. in Engineering Science and a Ph.D. in Civil Engineering (Environmental) from the University of South Florida, where her research focused on membrane separations. She has over 20 years of experience in developing curriculum for engineering and engineering technology for elementary, middle, high
AC 2008-289: A NEW CLASS COVERING HEALTH CARE TECHNOLOGIESRyan Beasley, Texas A&M University Ryan Beasley is an Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering Technology at Texas A&M University. He received his Ph.D. from Harvard University in 2006 as a result of his work on the control of surgical robots. His research activities involve designing surgical robots, developing virtual reality tools to enhance image-guided surgery, investigating haptic interfaces, and devising control algorithms for all the above. Page 13.70.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2008
design. Performance Improvement Journal, 41(7), August 2002. Proceedings of the 2008 Midwest Section Conference of the American Society for Engineering Education 9 8. David P. Miller. Quick and easy way to add vision to your iRobot Create or Roomba. http://i-borg.engr.ou.edu/˜dmiller/create/. 9. David P. Miller, Charles Winton, and Jerry B. Weinberg. Beyond Botball: A software oriented robotics challenge for undergraduate education. Technical Report SS-07-09, AAAI Press, Menlo Park, California, March 2007.10. Colleen E. van Lent. Using robot platforms to enhance concept learning in introductory cs courses. In AAAI
through a rudimentary root cause analysis process thatdetermined the basic issue to be poor time management. Simple techniques were outlined suchas subdividing the weekly deliverables into daily tasks. By that stage, each team member hadexperienced the frustration of being the weekly editor so there was more motivation too. Theimprovement to about 75% on-time completion seems to be the sort of figure to expect. Therelationship between on-time delivery and grade is shown in figure 7. A Final grade for course B C D E 0 20 40 60 80 100
Julian F Vincent and Darrell L Mann, "Systematic technology transfer from biology to engineering," Philosophical transactions: mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences 360, 159-173 (2002).17 G Pahl and W Beitz, Engineering Design: A systematic approach. (Springer-Verlag, London, 1999).18 John B. Ochs, Todd A. Watkins, and Berrisford Boothe, W., "Creating a truly multidisciplinary entrepreneurial educational environment," Journal of Engineering Education 90, 577-583 (2001).19 Cynthia J Atman, Robin S Adams, Monica E Cardella et al., "Engineering design processes: a comparison of students and expert practitioners," Journal of Engineering Education 96, 359-379 (2007).20 Kristin L Wood, Daniel Jensen, Joseph
text.Bibliography:1 Todd, R., S. Magleby, C. Sorensen, B. Swan, and D. Anthony, “A Survey of Capstone Engineering Courses in North America”, Journal of Engineering Education, April,1995, pp. 165-174.2 Abata, D., “A Successful Path for Engineering and Engineering Education,” ASEE Today: ASSE Prsim Magazine (V13, n9, p. 62, 2004).3 Dym, C.L., et al., “Engineering Design Thinking, Teaching, and Learning”, Journal of Engineering Education, 94 (1), 2005.4 Sheppard S., et al., “What is Engineering Practice?”, International Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 22, No. 3., pp. 429-438, 2006.5 Downey, G.L., et al., “The Globally Competent Engineer: Working Effectively with People Who Define Problems Differently”, Journal of
changingthe values of individual variables by one unit will allow educators to determine the resultingvalue in intervention efforts. The most valuable variables for developing intervention programswill be those that are directly controllable and have the greatest impact on increasing theestimated probability of a STEM outcome.Bibliography[1] National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Graduate Students and Postdoctorates inScience and Engineering: Fall 2002, NSF 05-310, Project Officers: Julia D. Oliver and Emilda B. Rivers (Arlington,VA 2004). (available from NSF website http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf04318/ )[2] Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology (CPST), data derived from the American Associationof
Page 13.1107.7 Figure 5: (a) Pad Base Gravel/Insulation/Lower Concrete Layer; (b) Initial Piping Installation on Concrete; (c) Final Upper Concrete Layer.A gravel base supports the pad, followed by two-inch insulation boards to reduce heatloss to the ground (Figure 5a). A one-dimensional, finite difference numerical heattransfer analysis of a 6” layer of concrete was performed to determine the benefit ofinsulating concrete with a top temperature of 100 ºF and a lower ground temperature of50 ºF. Insulation produces a 10 ºF higher temperature at the 2” depth where the waterpiping will be located compared to an un-insulated design; this was the reason for the useof insulation.A three-inch concrete layer was poured on the
, learning-oriented, support-oriented,challenge-oriented, and disruptive. The coding book is included in Attachment B. Table 2 showsa short episode from one of the teams. As seen in this table, both the students who engaged in theaction (action by) and the student towards whom the action was directed (action towards) wererecorded during coding.Table 2. Sample CodingStudent Code Discourse Action Discourse ActionName By Move TowardsA2: Alex I think one of our priorities should be distance A2 IDE from the building when you lower it down. Like having a little hang up away from the
compared to Computer Science and other engineering disciplines. The data shows 29% of the programs have 25 or fewer students and 71% have 100 or fewer. • The admission requirements vary widely. Some will accept anyone with any bachelors degree and a B average while others require a computer science degree and two years of relevant experience. • There is a wide variation in the depth and breadth of SWEBOK coverage in required and semi-required (those which a student has at least a 50% chance of taking) courses. Page 13.34.7 • On average, students take 11.6 courses for their degree, 8.3 of
which is on Imro’ Al-Qais: a famous poetin the Arabic literature.Aiman Kuzmar is an assistant professor of engineering at Penn State Fayette, the EberlyCampus. He holds a Ph. D. degree from Duke University. He has a Master’s degree from RiceUniversity. His B. S. is from the University of Petroleum and Minerals in Saudi Arabia. All ofhis degrees are in civil engineering. His industrial experience includes working as an Engineerfor the NCDOT. He is a registered engineer in North Carolina. He is a Jordanian citizen. 7
which is on Imro’ Al-Qais: a famous poetin the Arabic literature.Aiman Kuzmar is an assistant professor of engineering at Penn State Fayette, the EberlyCampus. He holds a Ph. D. degree from Duke University. He has a Master’s degree from RiceUniversity. His B. S. is from the University of Petroleum and Minerals in Saudi Arabia. All ofhis degrees are in civil engineering. His industrial experience includes working as an Engineerfor the NCDOT. He is a registered engineer in North Carolina. He is a Jordanian citizen. 7
following format: Survey on Teaching AssignmentA. Please provide specific written information, based on your experience in the TeachingAssignment:1) What was done well (please be specific):2) How can you be better motivated to learn the course materials?3) How would you do the teaching assignment if you have a choice?B. Please rate (on a scale of 1-10, with 10 = best) your perceptions of how successfully the teaching assignment was in terms of these dimensions: 1. Usefulness of the teaching assignment guideline ____ 2. How do you like the format of team presentation ____ 3. Learned all the materials in chapter 20____ 4. Learning of chapter 20 more effective than other chapters____ 5. Was the grading fair
course project. Peer-teachers helpedstudents in groups of four to five to design and present final course projects on energysustainability that modeled a similar project designed as a K-12 outreach activity.Students in the various project groups developed posters, short movies, and presentations.Some conducted interviews with people on campus.The delivery of the ENGR 101 course at our research campus differed from traditionalengineering course offerings in two ways: (a) peer teachers led the recitation activitiesand (b) weekly homework assignments were essays rather than problem solvingassignments. It is not uncommon that many students view engineering practice as simply
AC 2008-485: EMBEDDING BUSINESS STUDENTS INTO EET/TET E4 E-TEAMSJay Porter, Texas A&M University Jay R. Porter joined the Department of Engineering Technology and Industrial Distribution at Texas A&M University in 1998 and is currently the Program Director for the Electronics and Telecommunications Programs. He received the BS degree in electrical engineering (1987), the MS degree in physics (1989), and the Ph.D. in electrical engineering (1993) from Texas A&M University.Joseph Morgan, Texas A&M University Joseph A. Morgan has over 20 years of military and industry experience in electronics and telecommunications systems engineering. He joined the Engineering Technology
Project,” Proceedings of the 2005 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Section 1648, June 2005.3. Wang, J., Liu, S., and Price, A. H., “The Dancing Marionette - An Interdisciplinary Capstone Design Experience for Engineering Technology and Computer Science Students,” ASEE Annual Conference, June 18- Page 13.536.11 21, 2006, Chicago, Illinois.4. Pocius, A. V., Adhesion and Adhesives Technology – An Introduction, Hanser Verlag, 2002.5. Gerhard Gierenz, Werner Karmann. “Adhesives and adhesive tapes”, 2001, New York.6. Philippe Cognard. “Handbook of adhesives and sealants”, 2003, New York.7. Phillips, J., Adams, B
, and CEIA, and published in the Journal of Engineering Education, the Journal of Language and Social Psychology, the Journal of Applied Social Psychology, the European Journal of Social Psychology, and the European Review of Social Psychology.Christine B. Masters, Pennsylvania State University Christine B. Masters is an Assistant Professor of Engineering Science and Mechanics at The Pennsylvania State University. She earned a PhD from Penn State in 1992. In addition to raising four children with her husband of 20 years, she has been teaching introductory mechanics courses for more than 10 years, training the department graduate teaching assistants for 7 years, coordinating the
a tu s e s r o b o t i c s a s
, “Assessing a Retention Program for Pre-Freshman Engineering Students,” CD-Proceedings of the 2007 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Expo, Honolulu HI. 6. F. Costanzo and G. L. Gray, “On the implementation of Interactive Dynamics,” International Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 16, No. 5, 2000, 385-393. 7. R. Moreno, “Decreasing Cognitive Load for Novice Students: Effects of Explanatory versus Corrective Feedback in Discovery-Based Multimedia,” Instructional Science 32: 99-113, 2004. 8. R. H. Hall, T. A. Philpot, D. B. Oglesby, R. E. Flori, N. Hubing, S. E. Watkins, and V. Yellamraju, “A Model for the Evaluation of Innovative Engineering Courseware: Engineering an
technology, how it works, how it is being used, where it is being used, advantages and disadvantages of using the technology, cost savings it is providing, etc. Based on review of the literature, contact with field professionals, and perhaps personal experience with the technology, write a report and present or demonstrate the results to the class. - Other project ideas mutually agreed to by the instructor and the student.Grading Scale:The following grading scale will be used in assigning grades:100-90% = A 89-80% = B 79-70% = C 69-60% = D 59- 0% = FAdditional Notes and Policies:1. Please read assigned material PRIOR to the scheduled date.2. Incomplete "I" grades are reserved for students who have a serious
will then be used to create the mesh surface. This data is then processedto extract basic features if obtainable. All the regular features such as plane, cylinder, and conecan be extracted, while irregular surface are fitted to the spline surfaces. The surface created withsplines is NURBS surface (Non-Uniform Rational B- spline). Feature extraction will give a highquality representation of the road profile. A schematic flowchart how the laser scannermeasuring system operates is shown in Figure 5. Figure 5. Data processing diagram of the road scanning system3. Results from measurement and building of 3D modelThis section shows the experimental results obtained by placing three wooden planks on the floorin the indoor environment
pace within the course framework to address these needs. The role of formative assessment for helping them identify these needs and monitor their progress was also discussed.• Students completed a content-based pre-assessment (see Appendix B). Page 13.54.3• Students worked on developing an intuitive understanding of position-time and velocity-time graphs and the derivative/integral relationship between them by completing an extensive series of kinesthetic activities. In these activities students used Vernier motion detectors2 to measure and plot their position or velocity in real time as they walked to match different motion
2 :3 0 -3 :2 0 0 2 :3 0 -3 :2 0 (Se c tio ns 7 ,8 ,9 ) (Se c tio ns 7 ,8 ,9 ) W eek 2 M o nday Tue s day W e dne s day Thurs day Friday La b o r a to ry La b o r a to r y La b o ra to r y La b o r a to r y La b o r a to ry 0 8 :3 0 -1 1 :2 0 0 8 :3 0 -1 1 :2 0 0 8 :3 0 -1 1 :2 0 0 8 :3 0 -1 1 :2 0 0 8 :3 0 -1 1 :2 0 (Se c tio n 1 ) (Se c tio n 3 ) (Se c tio n 5 ) (Se c tio n 7 ) (Se c tio n 9 ) 0 2 :3 0 -0 5 :2 0 0 2 :3 0 -0 5 :2 0
2 :3 0 -3 :2 0 0 2 :3 0 -3 :2 0 (Se c tio ns 7 ,8 ,9 ) (Se c tio ns 7 ,8 ,9 ) W eek 2 M o nday Tue s day W e dne s day Thurs day Friday La b o r a to ry La b o r a to r y La b o ra to r y La b o r a to r y La b o r a to ry 0 8 :3 0 -1 1 :2 0 0 8 :3 0 -1 1 :2 0 0 8 :3 0 -1 1 :2 0 0 8 :3 0 -1 1 :2 0 0 8 :3 0 -1 1 :2 0 (Se c tio n 1 ) (Se c tio n 3 ) (Se c tio n 5 ) (Se c tio n 7 ) (Se c tio n 9 ) 0 2 :3 0 -0 5 :2 0 0 2 :3 0 -0 5 :2 0
stays entirely within its travel lane around corners. b) Robot stops within 0.05m of stop lines. c) At an intersection, robot exhibits less than 10 seconds of delay when intersection is clear. d) Robot completes passing maneuver around a stationary obstacle (of similar size to robot) within the modular section maintaining a safety buffer of 0.1m in front of and behind obstacle. e) Robot perpendicular parks in a designated parking spot.2. Required modified basic traffic rules are as follows. a) Robot stops between 0.1m and 0.25m behind a stopped lead vehicle. b) Robot travels at least half its maximum speed on straight-aways.3. Optional modified basic navigation rules are as follows
toprovide a physical feel for three-dimensional kinematics. In the 3D Matlab simulation project,students were first provided a description of how the simulator moves. The team of 3-4 studentscreated a physical model of the simulator with a representation of the different axis systems. Thismodel was used to help the teams develop coordinate transformation matrices between thedifferent axis systems. The angular velocities for each of the different motors (planetary, pitch,and roll) were provided to the student teams and they were asked to determine (a) the angularvelocity and acceleration that a pilot in the gondola would experience and (b) the linearaccelerations at the pilot’s head (i.e., the vestibular system). After calculating the inertial