Comparison of Student Learning and Flight Performance as a Function of the Method of Teaching – A Research Study

Adeel Khalid; Christopher Douglas Roper; J. Andrew Pirrello; Alain J. Santos

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Publication Date: June 23, 2018
Start Date: June 23, 2018
End Date: July 27, 2018
Conference Session: Aerospace Division Technical Session 1
Tagged Division: Aerospace
Tagged Topic: Diversity
Page Count: 19
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--30211
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/30211
Download Count: 622

Paper Authors

biography

Adeel Khalid Kennesaw State University

visit author page

Adeel Khalid, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Systems Engineering
Office: 470-578-7241

visit author page

biography

Christopher Douglas Roper

visit author page

Senior physics and mechanical engineering student with minors in aerospace engineering and mathematics. Enrolled in a dual-degree bachelor's program from the University of West Georgia and Kennesaw State University (formally Southern Polytechnic State University).

visit author page

biography

J. Andrew Pirrello Jr. Kennesaw State University

visit author page

J. Andrew Pirrello recently graduated with a Mechanical Engineering degree and Aerospace Engineering and Mathematics minors from Kennesaw State University in December of 2017. As a student at Kennesaw State, Andrew volunteered as a member of the Kennesaw State Aerial Robotics Competition Team where he founded the SAE AeroDesign Team and served as SAE Team Captain, and Team Pilot. Under Andrew’s leadership, the SAE AeroDesign Team designed, built, tested, and flew several large-scale radio-controlled airplanes capable of carrying a substantial payload. Additionally, Andrew served as Structures Designer and Pilot for the Sting One Owl Mascot Project where he designed, built, and flew a five-foot by five-foot hexa-copter drone designed to emulate an owl, Kennesaw’s mascot. The Unmanned Aerial System featured four onboard cameras for the purpose of flying over and recording Kennesaw’s football games. During his four summers as a college student, Andrew worked as a Design Engineer Intern for OFS Optics, an optical fiber manufacturing plant. As a Design Engineer Inter, Andrew created better solutions for factory processes using engineering concepts, enhanced his Computer Aided Engineering skills by designing new parts and assemblies to use in the plant, reverse engineered large machines and modified them to meet OFS’s needs, and created piping and instrument drawings of various plant processes. Now, Andrew works as an Aerospace Engineer at the C-17 Globemaster Program Office in Warner Robins.

visit author page

author page

Alain J. Santos

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

In this study, student learning and flight performance are assessed using a motion based fixed wing flight simulator. Students chosen for this study have no prior flight experience and have minimal knowledge of the aircraft operations or functions of the flight simulator. As part of this study, students are given introduction to the principles of flight. Then they fly the aircraft flight simulator and are asked to complete a pre-defined mission. Points are given for successfully completing several legs of the mission. Three separate and independent groups of students are recruited for the study from a large body of students. Students are randomly assigned to the three groups. Group A is presented with written literature to review before the flight. The literature defines the functions of the flight simulator, flight controls, aircraft principles, instruments and the required mission details. They are then asked to fly the mission without much help during the flight portion. They are free to ask questions during the flight. Group B is not presented with any literature for review before the flight. A short presentation is given to them that describes the flight controls, basic instruments and the mission. Their first real exposure to the flight is when they get on the simulator and start flying. They are free to ask questions and the instructor guides them as needed during the flight. Group C is presented with both the literature for review ahead of time and are given a short presentation before the flight. All three groups are asked to fly the exact same mission. They are graded based on their flight performance and handling and control of the aircraft during the flight. The flight is composed of starting a single engine land based aircraft, taking off while staying center lined on the runway, going upwind to an altitude of 1,000ft above the ground level, performing a left traffic pattern including cross wind, down wind, base and final legs. They are then asked to land the aircraft on the same runway that they took off from. No wind, adverse weather or artificial runway excursions or other emergencies are introduced during the flight. Score for these three groups are then compared. It is expected that group C will perform better that the other two groups. As part of the extended study, all the students will be asked to return to fly the same mission several weeks later. Their flight performance is measured again and the scores are compared across the three groups.

Citation
Format

Khalid, A., & Roper, C. D., & Pirrello, J. A., & Santos, A. J. (2018, June), Comparison of Student Learning and Flight Performance as a Function of the Method of Teaching – A Research Study Paper presented at 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition , Salt Lake City, Utah. 10.18260/1-2--30211

TY - CPAPER
AB - In this study, student learning and flight performance are assessed using a motion based fixed wing flight simulator. Students chosen for this study have no prior flight experience and have minimal knowledge of the aircraft operations or functions of the flight simulator. As part of this study, students are given introduction to the principles of flight. Then they fly the aircraft flight simulator and are asked to complete a pre-defined mission. Points are given for successfully completing several legs of the mission. Three separate and independent groups of students are recruited for the study from a large body of students. Students are randomly assigned to the three groups. Group A is presented with written literature to review before the flight. The literature defines the functions of the flight simulator, flight controls, aircraft principles, instruments and the required mission details. They are then asked to fly the mission without much help during the flight portion. They are free to ask questions during the flight. Group B is not presented with any literature for review before the flight. A short presentation is given to them that describes the flight controls, basic instruments and the mission. Their first real exposure to the flight is when they get on the simulator and start flying. They are free to ask questions and the instructor guides them as needed during the flight. Group C is presented with both the literature for review ahead of time and are given a short presentation before the flight. All three groups are asked to fly the exact same mission. They are graded based on their flight performance and handling and control of the aircraft during the flight. The flight is composed of starting a single engine land based aircraft, taking off while staying center lined on the runway, going upwind to an altitude of 1,000ft above the ground level, performing a left traffic pattern including cross wind, down wind, base and final legs. They are then asked to land the aircraft on the same runway that they took off from. No wind, adverse weather or artificial runway excursions or other emergencies are introduced during the flight. Score for these three groups are then compared. It is expected that group C will perform better that the other two groups. As part of the extended study, all the students will be asked to return to fly the same mission several weeks later. Their flight performance is measured again and the scores are compared across the three groups.
AU - Adeel Khalid
AU - Christopher Douglas Roper
AU - J. Andrew Pirrello Jr.
AU - Alain J. Santos
CY - Salt Lake City, Utah
DA - 2018/06/23
PB - ASEE Conferences
TI - Comparison of Student Learning and Flight Performance as a Function of the Method of Teaching – A Research Study
UR - https://peer.asee.org/30211
DO - 10.18260/1-2--30211
ER -