June 26, 2011
June 26, 2011
June 29, 2011
22.1256.1 - 22.1256.15
Revised Aerodynamics Curriculum and Instruction for Improved Student OutcomesIntroductionThis paper describes the implementation of a first course in aerodynamics revised in both contentand methodology as part of a revamping of the Junior-year aeronautics curriculum at a large,public university. The curriculum revision is supported by NASA’s E.2 Innovation inAeronautics Instruction. Previous pilot studies conducted at the university have demonstratedthat Aerospace Engineering students reported significantly lower confidence in their ability tosucceed in and lower perceived usefulness of their junior-level courses as compared with theirfreshman and sophomore courses .The aim of the course revision is to modernize the content and the approach to teaching andlearning that content. The original hypothesis stated that a more contemporary approach wouldstimulate students’ interest in learning course material since they would view the content as moreuseful to them in their future careers. Prior studies have concluded that conventional teachingmethods in university engineering courses undermine students’ motivation to persist in pursuingan engineering career [2-4].ApproachThe course was constructed using several philosophical changes from the previous coursedelivery:1. Utilize flow-simulation software (Overflow), including a post-processing visualization package (FieldView), in both lecture and homework assignments.2. Use “just-in-time” approach to integrate laboratory, homework assignments and lecture so that students investigate specific concepts on their own just before being introduced to the mathematical analysis describing those concepts.3. Remove substantial classical content, such as potential flow solutions, in favor of introducing numerical simulation.The most significant change to the course was the homework assignments, which requirestudents to perform numerical simulations and to utilize the results to postulate fundamentalaerodynamic concepts such as the slope of the lift curve, the variation of induced drag with wingspan, etc. Students discover these concepts on their own before they derive the simple theories(thin-airfoil, lifting-line, boundary-layer, etc.) that predict them.Since students taking this course do not have previous exposure to CFD, grid generation, post-processing or even, in some cases, computer programming, preparing the software package forstudent use presented some technical challenges. The paper will discuss the decision to use theOverflow/FieldView software combination. It will also discuss development of the MATLAB-based GUI that collects student-input case specifications (airfoil section, angle of attack, Machnumber, etc.) and then creates FORTRAN code that automatically generates a computationalgrid and an input file for Overflow.Evaluation and DiscussionStudents from two semesters of the aerodynamics course – Fall 2008 (traditional) and Fall 2009(non-traditional) – were surveyed. The surveys used in this evaluation reflect well-establishedscales that have generated valid and reliable responses from student . The evaluation resultsshowed that students in the nontraditional class (Fall 2009) retained their belief that they canimprove their ability to succeed through study and effort rather than solely relying on innateintellectual ability. Students’ belief that intellectual capability can be improved has been shownto be critical to their use of learning strategies and persistent efforts [6-8]. The non-traditionalimplementation is currently in progress in Fall 2010 with further evaluation underway.References Husman, J & Chung, W-.T. Unpublished Data, 2010 Guzdial, M., Ludovice, P., Realff, M., Morley, T., Carroll, K., et al., “The challenge ofcollaborative learning in engineering and math”, presented at Frontiers in Education Conference,2001. 31st Annual, NY, 2001. Kalonji, G., “Capturing the imagination: High-priority reforms for engineering education” inEducating the engineer of 2020: Adapting engineering education to the new century.Washington,DC: National Academics Press, 2005, pp. 146-450. Seymour, E. and Hewitt, M. N., Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave theSciences. Westview Press, 1997. Husman, J., Lynch, C., Hilpert, J., and Duggan, M. A., "Validating measures of future timeperspective for engineering students: Steps toward improving engineering education", presentedat American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Honolulu, HI,2007. Dweck, C.S., Self-theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development,Philadelphia: Psychology Press, 2000. Roedel, T.D., and G. Schraw, G., “Beliefs about Intelligence and Academic Goals,”Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol. 20, 1995, pp. 464-468. Dupeyrat, C., and C. Mariné, “Implicit Theories of Intelligence, Achievement Goals, andLearning Strategy Use,” Psychologische Beitrage, Vol. 43, No. 1, 2001, pp. 34-52.
Wells, V. L., & Husman, J., & Shankar, P., & Chung, W. (2011, June), Revised Aerodynamics Curriculum and Instruction for Improved Student Outcomes Paper presented at 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Vancouver, BC. 10.18260/1-2--18343
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2011 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015